To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter explains how, in the wake of the reforms implemented since the early 1980s and the desire to provide a legal framework for State action, successive statutes have laid the foundations for a system of responsibility of public authorities in the People’s Republic of China. Despite the establishment of mechanisms to enforce State responsibility, the system still suffers from a number of shortcomings. Some are inherent in the reluctance of any State to be held responsible; others are more specific and outline the contours of a regime of responsibility specific to China at a time when the country wishes to assert a government model to compete with liberal democracy. In the background, a regime of political rather than legal responsibility has emerged, which both limits the obstacles to public action (in order to ensure efficiency) and emphasizes the government’s duty to ensure common prosperity. The report examines the Chinese bureaucratic culture, its history and the specificities of the current political system to explain the origin of this specifically Chinese conception of the responsibility of public authorities.
This article explores the historical background of an issue that is central to present-day constitutional and human-rights discourse: the relationship between human dignity and the fight against poverty. It analyzes the role the idea of human dignity played in the reasoning of nineteenth-century German middle-class authors who were professionally engaged in social-reform debates, with a particular focus on debates about mendicancy. In these debates, notions of dignity were pervasive, and they provoked a troubling question: Is poverty a state of impaired dignity, and if yes, in which direction does causality point? Tracing the shifting perceptions from the enlightened belief in the self-perfectibility of man at the beginning of the nineteenth century to the rise of biomedical theories at its end, the article argues that concerns about human dignity gave the commitment to eradicate destitution an important impetus, yet with side effects that highlight the pitfalls of the dignity concept.
We revisit the Friedman rule in a labor search model and extend Heer (2003), Cooley and Quadrini (2004), and Wang and Xie (2013) to one that allows for endogenous growth. We show that, even without a liquidity effect or a CIA constraint on firms’ wage payment, our model offers a different channel for moderate money growth to increase welfare. Intuitively, in a one-sector endogenous growth economy, the technology is of constant returns with respect to capital. When the labor market is frictional, a moderate increase in money growth induces an expansion in vacancy and employment. Labor and capital are complements in production. With an increase in employment, when the technology is neoclassical, the decreasing return in capital leads to a lower marginal product of labor. However, in an endogenous growth framework wherein the technology exhibits socially constant returns in capital, the marginal product of labor is constant. Due to a constant marginal product of labor, modest inflation raises employment, enlarges economic growth, and increases welfare. Moreover, the optimal long-run inflation rate departs from the Friedman rule, even when the Hosios rule holds. Finally, we find that our model with sustainable growth fits the data better than that without sustainable growth.
Political and property crises open up vital new questions for property theorists, and analyses of state responses to these crises cast new light on how property systems, and property law, adapt and evolve to meet complex challenges – while remaining institutionally resilient themselves. Resilient Property draws on equilibrium theory to understand how resilience is produced, for states and for individuals. In this postscript, we reflect on the property crises we are currently collectively facing, across the world: the impact, and aftermath of the global coronavirus pandemic. Applying the lens of our Resilient Property theory, we examine the emergency measures adopted by several governments as the pandemic threatened the health and wellbeing of citizens on a scale that was unprecedented for most of our lifetimes. As “stay-in-place” orders, including the provision of emergency shelter for unhoused or precariously housed people, collided with an upsurge in vacant commercial buildings and stalled development projects, the perfect property storm of homelessness, squatting and empty buildings/land was brought into fresh relief. Through a Resilient Property lens, state responses to property problems in the pandemic reveal the resilience needs that states were confronted with during the crisis, and the actions they took to maintain and restore equilibrium through the shockwaves of the pandemic and its aftermath
The economic and social welfare of people living in Australia has been shaped by different sets of laws: Indigenous laws that meant individual welfare was ensured by family and kin, British laws that decreed welfare a distinct domain for managing the casualties of a hierarchical social order, and a settler colonial adaptation of the British system in which the colonial state provided the infrastructure for growth. This chapter argues that while state investment worked in positive ways for settler economies, it acted as the motor of Indigenous dispossession – though Indigenous communities maintained customary law and adapted settler welfare for their own well-being. White women were marginalised in settler economies but feminist agitation focussed on state welfare as the source of reform. The last 30 years have seen social investment in retreat, though it was revived during the Global Financial crisis and against Covid-19. The early 21st century has also witnessed the increasing dissemination of Indigenous ideas of well-being. The histories of these enduring strands provide some clarity on how we might approach what some have argued is impending automation and a ‘post-work future’.
As the breadth and scope of primate cognition research continues to evolve, it remains essential that the ethical considerations of such work do so as well. The evaluation of ethics is shaped by time and place and centers on a variety of factors, including the questions being asked, the methods used, the setting, and the species studied. Here, we take a pragmatic approach in examining ethical considerations as they relate to cognitive research with primates in both captive and wild settings. We encourage primatologists to consider how primates’ lives are impacted prior to, during, and following the research. In addition, we highlight the importance of considering how such research activities interface with the people who work or live alongside the primates. Thus, we aim to help guide those studying and working with primates to plan and conduct ethically sound research.
This chapter shows how the paternalist policy style impacts social policy implementation at the provincial level and below. The top-down approach in paternalist provinces produces relatively standardized social policy but reduces opportunities for officials to innovate and tailor policies to local conditions. Fiscal transfers from the center often foster corruption and dependency in these provinces. Thus, many paternalist provinces have experienced rising inequality despite targeted policies and transfers. While focusing on health policy in paternalist provinces, this chapter also discusses the impact of paternalism on education, poverty alleviation, and housing.
Mixed provinces exhibit elements of pragmatism in addition to elements of paternalism. They tend to be more politically open than paternalist provinces but more restrictive than their pragmatist counterparts. This combination produces a policy style in which provincial leaders take a top-down approach to policymaking and standardize new policies across the province yet tend to be relatively frugal in their social policy allocations both in relative and per capita spending. In some cases, mixed provinces are caught in the middle: they do not generate as much revenue as coastal provinces, but they are not poor enough to be eligible for certain fiscal transfers from the central government. As a result, the budget for social policy in these provinces is often among the smallest in the country. This chapter focuses on health policy in mixed provinces, while also discussing the impact of a mixed policy style on education, poverty alleviation, and housing.
Due to uneven economic reforms, Chinese provinces developed distinct approaches to governing that shaped social policy priorities and policy implementation in the 2000s. This chapter presents the book’s argument in the context of research on social policy and Chinese politics. The chapter synthesizes previous research on the welfare state in developing countries, social policy in China, and decentralization in Chinese politics. The chapter also explains the book’s theoretical framework of policy styles. The chapter concludes by discussing research methods and the structure of the book.
The conclusion recapitulates the book’s argument that Chinese provinces take different approaches to governing, which have impacted social policy implementation. This chapter discusses how recentralization under Xi Jinping may interact with local approaches to governing. The chapter also examines how policy style may have exacerbated local actors’ initial response to the novel coronavirus in 2019. The chapter concludes by discussing how the policy-style framework could be applied to subnational analysis beyond China and the broader implications of the argument.
Local government in China is largely responsible for funding social policy and has significant control over the specifics of program design and implementation. Therefore, the same policy can look quite different across provinces and even across counties within the same province. What accounts for local variation in social policy provision? This chapter provides a framework of provincial policy styles and demonstrates how these distinct ways of governing help explain variation in social policy implementation. First, the chapter presents an index of policy styles to classify Chinese provinces based on their dominant policy style: pragmatist, paternalist, or mixed. Then, the chapter examines how provinces diverge in their social policy priorities using provincial social policy spending to measure social policy priorities. The analysis finds that pragmatist provinces are more likely to prioritize education and healthcare, while paternalist provinces are more likely to prioritize poverty alleviation and housing.
This chapter shows how pragmatist provinces shape social policy provision through the devolution of responsibility to local government. Pragmatist provinces have followed Deng Xiaoping’s “do what works” approach to the policy process. Despite the risks within an authoritarian system, officials in pragmatist provinces are more likely to experiment and innovate. These provinces devolve more responsibility to their localities, which offers opportunities for local officials to learn new skills and develop capacity in new areas. However, as they are generally wealthier, pragmatist provinces receive fewer fiscal transfers from the center for social policy. Therefore, they sometimes drag their feet in implementing unfunded mandates that do not coincide with their provincial priorities. While focusing on health policy in pragmatist provinces, this chapter also discusses the impact of pragmatism on education, poverty alleviation, and housing.
Due to uneven economic reforms, Chinese provinces have developed distinct approaches to governing that impact social policy priorities and policy implementation. Ratigan shows how coastal provinces tended to prioritize health and education, and developed a pragmatic policy style, which fostered innovation and professionalism in policy implementation. Meanwhile, inland provinces tended to prioritize targeted poverty alleviation and affordable housing, while taking a paternalist, top-down approach to implementation. This book provides a quantitative analysis of provincial social policy spending in the 2000s and qualitative case studies of provinces with divergent approaches to social policy. It highlights healthcare, but also draws on illustrative examples from poverty alleviation, education, and housing policy. By showing the importance of local actors in shaping social policy implementation, this book will appeal to scholars and advanced students of Chinese politics, comparative welfare studies, and comparative politics.
Opinion polls indicate that many people in the UK are concerned about wildlife declines and about overpopulation. These feelings are widely shared by naturalists, scientists, artists and many religious groups, as well as by the general public. Unfortunately, such views are uncommon among economists and rarely feature at all in politics. Discussion of population pressure has remained largely taboo, even in wildlife circles, presumably because of fear of causing offence. However, there are adverse consequences for society from a high human population that go far beyond problems for wildlife and countryside. Traffic jams are health hazards, both physically and mentally,and infrastructure expansions generate stress for those affected by them, while public services including healthcare and education are increasingly overwhelmed by people needing to use them.
This chapter is diagnostic in nature and marks a turn toward a normative assessment. It argues that we continue to experience high levels of distrust in government for three reasons. First, it observes that, however dark our current circumstances, the counterfactual in which the legislature is more active in lawmaking is darker still. Second, it points out that the scope of government activity has changed markedly over the last century, with the government edging into policy areas that may be comparatively difficult to build trust in. Third, and most relevant to the book’s thesis, the present state deviates from the theory in a variety of ways. For instance, administrative agencies increasingly favor thinly proceduralized actions, often at the expense of transparency, deliberation and public reasoning. Likewise, an ideology of presidential control over the administrative state threatens the space necessary for the reasoning state to thrive. Privatization of public roles, similarly, jeopardizes the place of the reasoning state.
Chapter 6 is an analysis of human–elephant conflict in Northern Botswana. Here, autonomy has a very different role in the making of the conflict, as the autonomy that is given priority is the autonomy of people outside of direct contact with elephants and often outside of the country and continent itself. The chapter demonstrates that the promotion of autonomy between people is not equal and is interrelated with other dominations involving race, gender, culture and status. In Botswana, this means that responses to human–elephant conflict are often dictated by people who do not have any direct experience with the conflict and do not have to bear the everyday cost of living with conflict. A cursory analysis of these responses suggests that there has been an attempt to build resilience to vulnerability, as the state has implemented measures that are prima facie consistent with a vulnerability approach. However, the case study shows that even genuine resilience measures can be ineffective when there is a lack of collaboration in their design and implementation and when the money and power is held elsewhere.
Chapter 4 presents international wildlife law as an institutional governance system relevant to local responses to human–wildlife conflict. It finds that there is a lack of any real ‘conflict’ language within the framework and this limits the ability of international law to deal with the problem at the outset. Further, the value orientations discussed within Chapters 2 and 3 are all present in international wildlife law to some extent and so the framework has the same conflict of values that are present in situations of human–wildlife conflict. The chapter traces the development of ‘dominance’ in international law and finds that there are specific principles and legal developments that continue to prevent a positive relationship that is beneficial to both people and wildlife. In addition, the underlying constraints of capitalism, neo-liberalism and sustainable development are discussed. Finally, this part posits that the failure of international law to implement a meaningful interpretation of intrinsic value and animal welfare has meant that such language has not been able to minimise the damage done by the dominant framework. The chapter concludes with suggestions for eco-vulnerability principles to be incorporated into international law.
Introducing susceptible-infected-recovered epidemiology dynamics with vaccines into an endogenous growth model, we investigate the impact of government infectious disease policy on macroeconomic performance. We find that any expenditure that improves health, whether to reduce the contact rate or increase the recovery rate or the vaccination rate, and regardless of whether it comes directly from the households or the government, has a positive impact on economic growth, but does not necessarily improve the welfare. The reason people’s health has improved but their welfare has fallen is because government expenditures must be covered by taxes, which will reduce their disposable income and consumption.
This article examines Rockefeller Republicanism and its status within the Republican Party by looking at the evolution of Nelson Rockefeller’s support for social welfare policy between 1958 and 1975. New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller regularly appears in histories of modern conservatism as the embodiment of the liberalism that conservatives rejected, but these works rarely account for the entirety of Rockefeller’s career. Rather than focus on Rockefeller’s challenges to the national Republican Party in 1960 and 1964, which results in an incomplete representation of Rockefeller Republicanism, this article reassesses moderate Republicanism’s perceived dominance and Rockefeller’s advocacy for liberal domestic policies and commitment to racial liberalism in New York. A full account of Rockefeller’s struggles to find common ground with conservative New York Republicans and adoption of conservative positions related to law enforcement and welfare reform thwarted one of the GOP’s best opportunities to assemble a multiracial and cross-class constituency.
The repeated circulation of anti-welfare discourses has served to encourage limited and often incorrect public understandings of issues pertaining to welfare. Central to these processes is the social construction of notions of ‘deservedness’ and ‘undeservedness.’ In this article we examine the 2017 ‘Welfare Cheats, Cheat Us All’ (original emphasis) campaign initiated by the Department of Social Protection in the Republic of Ireland. We present our analysis of the dominant discourses evident in the campaign itself and the in-house discussions in the lead up to the campaign. Our article shows that this Irish campaign rehearses a familiar international discourse which follows distinct patterns or rules, and we evidence, in keeping with other moral panics, the spurious nature of the data being used to exaggerate the scale and extent of welfare ‘fraud’.