U.S. Welfare Reform: what's Relevant for Europe?

IF 0.7 4区经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS

Hacienda Publica Espanola-Review of Public Economics Pub Date : 2003-01-01 DOI:10.1093/CESIFO/49.1.49

Rebecca M. Blank

引用次数: 20

Abstract

This paper reviews the U.S. welfare reform efforts over the 1990s and the effects of these reforms to date. Seven "lessons" of potential interest to European observers are discussed, with particular attention to the conclusions of more recent research. Such research indicates, for example, that more effective programs contain both positive and negative incentives, utilize work-first as well as job training programs, and provide some important supports beyond just job and work skills. The paper ends with some speculations about why European policy-makers are becoming more interested in U.S. welfare reform experiments than they have been in the past.

查看原文本刊更多论文

美国福利改革:对欧洲有何启示?

本文回顾了20世纪90年代美国福利改革的努力以及迄今为止这些改革的效果。本书讨论了欧洲观察家可能感兴趣的七个“教训”，并特别关注了近期研究的结论。例如，这些研究表明，更有效的计划包含积极和消极的激励，利用工作优先和职业培训计划，并提供一些重要的支持，而不仅仅是工作和工作技能。文章最后对欧洲政策制定者为什么比过去对美国福利改革实验更感兴趣进行了一些推测。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Hacienda Publica Espanola-Review of Public Economics Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Finance

CiteScore

0.90

自引率

14.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Hacienda Pública Española/Review of Public Economics welcomes submissions on all areas of public economics. We seek to publish original and innovative research, applied and theoretical, related to the economic analysis of Government intervention. For example, but not exclusively: Taxation, Redistribution, Health, Education, Pensions, Governance, Fiscal Policy and Fiscal Federalism. In addition to regular submissions, the journal welcomes submissions of: -Survey Reviews, containing surveys of the literature regarding issues of interest in the Public Economics field; -Policy oriented reviews, showing the current contributions of Public Economics in relation to relevant contemporary issues affecting public decision-makers in the real world (Policy Watch); -Comments of previously published articles. Contributions to this section should be limited to a maximum of 2 000 words (12 pages). If deemed adequate, the authors of the commented article will be given the opportunity to react in a Reply. Both Comment and Reply will be published together. Articles for the Survey Reviews and Policy Watch section are subject to the same double blind reviwing procedure. The adequacy of Comments submitted for publication will be evaluated by the Executive Editors.