Refine
Departments, institutes and facilities
- Fachbereich Sozialpolitik und Soziale Sicherung (14)
- Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften (9)
- Fachbereich Ingenieurwissenschaften und Kommunikation (8)
- Fachbereich Angewandte Naturwissenschaften (6)
- Institut für funktionale Gen-Analytik (IFGA) (5)
- Institut für Verbraucherinformatik (IVI) (4)
- Fachbereich Informatik (3)
- Institut für Medienentwicklung und -analyse (IMEA) (3)
- Institut für Technik, Ressourcenschonung und Energieeffizienz (TREE) (3)
- Zentrum für Ethik und Verantwortung (ZEV) (3)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (45) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2021 (45) (remove)
Keywords
- Boundary management crafting (1)
- Changes in communication (1)
- Digitalisierung (1)
- Information and communications technology (1)
- Ingenieurausbildung (1)
- Labore (1)
- Onlinelabore (1)
- Onlinelehre (1)
- Remote-Labore (1)
- Social Media (1)
- Work-nonwork balance (1)
- fake news and alternative facts (1)
- novel publishing models in science (1)
- social media (1)
- the need for open and critical dialogue (1)
The idea of a basic income grant (BIG) is not new and there are ongoing debates internationally as well as nationally in low- and middle-income countries just like in high-income countries of a BIG as a social protection policy option. The challenge is that there are different conceptualisations, which conflates and muddles the understanding. In the context of social assistance provision, a universal basic income grant (UBIG) is often compared and contrasted against targeted cash transfers (CTs). This case study systematically presents the arguments for targeted CTs and UBIGs. The value of the case study is that it systematically brings together these arguments, highlighting the variations in UBIG applications, including the evidence and actual impact of UBIG experiments. The structure of the case study is as follows: Section 2 simultaneously contrasts and compares the arguments for targeted CTs and UBIG. Section 3 discusses UBIG experiments, as well as presenting the evidence on the application of the UBIG idea, and Section 4 concludes.
In recent years, the basic income grant (BIG) discourse has gained attention worldwide as a potential policy option in social protection as testified by recent public debates, ongoing pilot projects, campaigning efforts,1 policy measures during Covid-19 and the surge in academic research. A BIG refers to regular cash transfers paid to all members of society irrespective of their socio-economic status, their capacity or willingness to participate in the labour market or having to meet pre-determined conditions (Offe 2008; Van Parijs 1995, 2003; Wright 2004, 2006). Despite the recent hype around BIG, Iran is the only country worldwide with a scaled-up BIG (Tabatabai 2011, 2012). Other programmes have never gone beyond pilot programmes. This raises the question why this is the case.
Policy analysis is the cornerstone of evidence-based policy making.1 It identifies the problems, informs programme design, supports the monitoring of policy implementation and is needed to evaluate programme impacts (Scott 2005). Rigorous and credible policy evidence is necessary to ensure the transparency and accountability of policy decisions, to secure political and public support and, hence, the allocation of financial resources. Sound policy analysis helps design effective and efficient programmes, thereby maximizing programme impact.
The future of work
(2021)
Driven by the exponential increase in the computational power of machines, data digitalization and scientific advancement in robotics and automation, the current wave of technological change is seemingly unprecedented in speed and scale. It transforms manufacturing and businesses making them more flexible, decentralized and efficient (Lasi et al. 2014). Even though technological change is nothing new, some argue that it is different this time. The new technologies have not only the potential to substitute labor (Nomaler and Verspagen 2018), they also change the way people work. The trend towards new forms of employment is no longer a marginal phenomenon.
Dieses Dokument präsentiert eine Zusammenfassung der Dissertation der Autorin. In dieser Dissertation [Ha20] wurde ein neuartiger und hybrider Ansatz für die Scha ̈tzung der Intensität von Gesichtsmuskelbewegungen (Action Unit (AU)) vorgeschlagen und validiert. Dieser Ansatz basiert auf einer Gauß’schen Zustandsschätzung und kombiniert ein verformbares, AU-basiertes Gesichtsformmodell, ein viskoelastisches Modell der Gesichtsmuskelbewegung, mehrere erscheinungsbasierten AU-Klassifikatoren und eine Methode zur Erkennung von Gesichtspunkten. Es wurden mehrere Erweiterungen vorgeschlagen und in das Zustandsschätzungs-Framework integriert, um mit den personenspezifischen Eigenschaften sowie technischen und praktischen Herausforderungen umzugehen.Die mit der vorgeschlagenen Methode erzeugten AU-Intensitätsschätzungen wurden für die automatische Erkennung von Schmerzen und für die Analyse von Fahrerablenkung eingesetzt.
Social services
(2021)
People are usually exposed to multiple economic and social risks, including discrimination, abuse, violence and social exclusion. While material support has a positive impact on the reduction of social risks and aspects of exclusion (WHO 2019), some situations require concrete, personal and guiding support on an individual basis. This type of service is commonly referred to as social services (Trukeschitz 2006).