The Experts below are selected from a list of 902592 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Steve G. Sutton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Starving the Beast: Using Tax Policy and Governmental Budgeting to Drive Social Policy
Accounting and the Public Interest, 2009Co-Authors: Amy M. Hageman, Vicky Arnold, Steve G. SuttonAbstract:ABSTRACT: This study explores the philosophical and theoretical bases underlying U.S. tax and Social Policy for over 25 years in order to develop a comprehensive framework from which to evaluate the intended and actual effects on wealth distribution and Social Policy overall. The framework provides a basis for understanding the overarching Social agenda of neoconservative leadership as it advocates what has become known as Starve the Beast (STB). The STB strategy focuses on altering taxation structures in order to facilitate desired reallocations in government budgets to effect change in Social Policy. This study explores the roots of STB beginning with the political philosophy of Leo Strauss, followed by the adaptation of Strauss's philosophy by Irving Kristol (the godfather of neoconservatism) in establishing the basic tenets of neoconservative political theory, and the marriage of neoconservatism with supply‐side economics to increase popular support. Through this anthropological study, 11 propositions...
-
starving the beast using tax Policy and governmental budgeting to drive Social Policy
Social Science Research Network, 2007Co-Authors: Amy M. Hageman, Vicky Arnold, Steve G. SuttonAbstract:This study explores the philosophical and theoretical bases underlying U.S. tax and Social Policy for over 25 years in order to develop a comprehensive framework from which to evaluate the intended and actual effects on wealth distribution and Social Policy overall. The framework provides a basis for understanding the overarching Social agenda of neoconservative leadership as it advocates what has become known as Starve the Beast (STB). The STB strategy focuses on altering taxation structures in order to facilitate desired reallocations in government budgets to effect change in Social Policy. This study explores the roots of STB beginning with the political philosophy of Leo Strauss, followed by the adaptation of Strauss's philosophy by Irving Kristol (the godfather of neoconservatism) in establishing the basic tenets of neoconservative political theory, and the marriage of neo-conservatism with supply-side economics to increase popular support. Through this anthropological study, 11 propositions evolve during the development of a comprehensive view of a complex Social Policy underlying STB strategies designed to promote wealth retention, less progressive tax rate structures, less spending on Social programs, and greater national focus on defense, security, and patriotism.
Venelin Terziev - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Social Policy and labor market development in bulgarian transition period
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: Venelin TerzievAbstract:The paper deals with the problems of Social Policy development on modern labor market presenting the example of the transition period in the Republic of Bulgaria. Social Policy is characterized in its different aspects, as well as different approaches on employment and unemployment regarding labor force. The content of Social Policy and generalized value indicators for the standard of living of the population are discussed, as well as different stages in labor market and Social Policy development in the country outlining the most significant features. Conclusions are made about the functioning of labor market and the link to Social and economic development.
David J Brady - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
paradoxes of Social Policy welfare transfers relative poverty and redistribution preferences
American Sociological Review, 2015Co-Authors: David J Brady, Amie BosticAbstract:Korpi and Palme’s (1998) classic “The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality” claims that universal Social Policy better reduces poverty than Social policies targeted at the poor. This article revisits Korpi and Palme’s classic, and in the process, explores and informs a set of enduring questions about Social Policy, politics, and Social equality. Specifically, we investigate the relationships between three dimensions of welfare transfers—transfer share (the average share of household income from welfare transfers), low-income targeting, and universalism—and poverty and preferences for redistribution. We analyze rich democracies like Korpi and Palme, but we also generalize to a broader sample of developed and developing countries. Consistent with Korpi and Palme, we show (1) poverty is negatively associated with transfer share and universalism; (2) redistribution preferences are negatively associated with low-income targeting; and (3) universalism is positively associated with transfer share...
-
paradoxes of Social Policy welfare transfers relative poverty and redistribution preferences
EconStor Open Access Articles, 2015Co-Authors: David J Brady, Amie BosticAbstract:Korpi and Palme’s (1998) classic “The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality” claims that universal Social Policy better reduces poverty than Social policies targeted at the poor. This article revisits Korpi and Palme’s classic, and in the process, explores and informs a set of enduring questions about Social Policy, politics, and Social equality. Specifically, we investigate the relationships between three dimensions of welfare transfers—transfer share (the average share of household income from welfare transfers), low-income targeting, and universalism—and poverty and preferences for redistribution. We analyze rich democracies like Korpi and Palme, but we also generalize to a broader sample of developed and developing countries. Consistent with Korpi and Palme, we show (1) poverty is negatively associated with transfer share and universalism; (2) redistribution preferences are negatively associated with low-income targeting; and (3) universalism is positively associated with transfer share. Contrary to Korpi and Palme, redistribution preferences are not related to transfer share or universalism; and low-income targeting is neither positively associated with poverty nor negatively associated with transfer share. Therefore, instead of the “paradox of redistribution” we propose two new paradoxes of Social Policy: non-complementarity and undermining. The non-complementarity paradox entails a mismatch between the dimensions that matter to poverty and the dimension that matters to redistribution preferences. The undermining paradox emphasizes that the dimension (transfer share) that most reduces poverty tends to increase with the one dimension (low-income targeting) that reduces support for redistribution.
-
does immigration undermine public support for Social Policy
American Sociological Review, 2014Co-Authors: David J Brady, Ryan FinniganAbstract:There has been great interest in the relationship between immigration and the welfare state in recent years, and particularly since Alesina and Glaeser’s (2004) influential work. Following literatures on solidarity and fractionalization, race in the U.S. welfare state, and anti-immigrant sentiments, many contend that immigration undermines public support for Social Policy. This study analyzes three measures of immigration and six welfare attitudes using 1996 and 2006 International Social Survey Program (ISSP) data for 17 affluent democracies. Based on multi-level and two-way fixed-effects models, our results mostly fail to support the generic hypothesis that immigration undermines public support for Social Policy. The percent foreign born, net migration, and the 10-year change in the percent foreign born all fail to have robust significant negative effects on welfare attitudes. There is evidence that the percent foreign born significantly undermines the welfare attitude that government “should provide a j...
-
does immigration undermine public support for Social Policy
EconStor Open Access Articles, 2014Co-Authors: David J Brady, Ryan FinniganAbstract:There has been great interest in the relationship between immigration and the welfare state in recent years, and particularly since Alesina and Glaeser’s (2004) influential work. Following literatures on solidarity and fractionalization, race in the U.S. welfare state, and anti-immigrant sentiments, many contend that immigration undermines public support for Social Policy. This study analyzes three measures of immigration and six welfare attitudes using 1996 and 2006 International Social Survey Program (ISSP) data for 17 affluent democracies. Based on multi-level and two-way fixed-effects models, our results mostly fail to support the generic hypothesis that immigration undermines public support for Social Policy. The percent foreign born, net migration, and the 10-year change in the percent foreign born all fail to have robust significant negative effects on welfare attitudes. There is evidence that the percent foreign born significantly undermines the welfare attitude that government “should provide a job for everyone who wants one.” However, there is more robust evidence that net migration and change in percent foreign born have positive effects on welfare attitudes. We conclude that the compensation and chauvinism hypotheses provide greater potential for future research, and we critically consider other ways immigration could undermine the welfare state. Ultimately, this study demonstrates that factors other than immigration are far more important for public support of Social Policy.
Amie Bostic - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
paradoxes of Social Policy welfare transfers relative poverty and redistribution preferences
American Sociological Review, 2015Co-Authors: David J Brady, Amie BosticAbstract:Korpi and Palme’s (1998) classic “The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality” claims that universal Social Policy better reduces poverty than Social policies targeted at the poor. This article revisits Korpi and Palme’s classic, and in the process, explores and informs a set of enduring questions about Social Policy, politics, and Social equality. Specifically, we investigate the relationships between three dimensions of welfare transfers—transfer share (the average share of household income from welfare transfers), low-income targeting, and universalism—and poverty and preferences for redistribution. We analyze rich democracies like Korpi and Palme, but we also generalize to a broader sample of developed and developing countries. Consistent with Korpi and Palme, we show (1) poverty is negatively associated with transfer share and universalism; (2) redistribution preferences are negatively associated with low-income targeting; and (3) universalism is positively associated with transfer share...
-
paradoxes of Social Policy welfare transfers relative poverty and redistribution preferences
EconStor Open Access Articles, 2015Co-Authors: David J Brady, Amie BosticAbstract:Korpi and Palme’s (1998) classic “The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality” claims that universal Social Policy better reduces poverty than Social policies targeted at the poor. This article revisits Korpi and Palme’s classic, and in the process, explores and informs a set of enduring questions about Social Policy, politics, and Social equality. Specifically, we investigate the relationships between three dimensions of welfare transfers—transfer share (the average share of household income from welfare transfers), low-income targeting, and universalism—and poverty and preferences for redistribution. We analyze rich democracies like Korpi and Palme, but we also generalize to a broader sample of developed and developing countries. Consistent with Korpi and Palme, we show (1) poverty is negatively associated with transfer share and universalism; (2) redistribution preferences are negatively associated with low-income targeting; and (3) universalism is positively associated with transfer share. Contrary to Korpi and Palme, redistribution preferences are not related to transfer share or universalism; and low-income targeting is neither positively associated with poverty nor negatively associated with transfer share. Therefore, instead of the “paradox of redistribution” we propose two new paradoxes of Social Policy: non-complementarity and undermining. The non-complementarity paradox entails a mismatch between the dimensions that matter to poverty and the dimension that matters to redistribution preferences. The undermining paradox emphasizes that the dimension (transfer share) that most reduces poverty tends to increase with the one dimension (low-income targeting) that reduces support for redistribution.
Alexander Goerne - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparative Social Policy analysis and active labour market Policy putting quality before quantity
Journal of Social Policy, 2016Co-Authors: Jochen Clasen, Daniel Clegg, Alexander GoerneAbstract:In the past decade, active labour market Policy (ALMP) has become a major topic in comparative Social Policy analysis, with scholars exploiting cross-national variation to seek to identify the determinants of Policy development in this central area of the ‘new welfare state’. In this paper, we argue that better integration of this Policy field into Social Policy scholarship requires rather more critical engagement with considerable methodological, conceptual and theoretical challenges in order to analyse these policies comparatively. Most fundamentally, rather more reflection is needed on what the substantially relevant dimensions of variation in ALMP from a Social Policy perspective actually are, as well as enhanced efforts to ensure that it is those that are being analysed and compared.
