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)
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).
Orešković and Porsdam Mann draw a distinction between ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ science. Whereas the latter involves rigorous and laborious adherence to the scientific method, the former represents the reality that much scientific work faces time pressures which at times force shortcuts. The distinction can be seen to operate in contemporary research into the coronavirus pandemic: whereas the development of vaccines and treatments usually requires years of meticulous laboratory work and several more years of clinical testing, the many millions suffering from the disease need a treatment now. However, by taking too many safeguards off the treatment discovery and testing pipelines, or by refusing to act in accordance with scientific advice, governments risk sacrificing the public’s trust not only in the government’s scientific bona fides but in the scientific process itself. This is a heavy price to pay, argue Orešković and Porsdam Mann, and point to evidence indicating that the success of Germany and Japan in combating COVID-19 can be traced to public trust in science and government, as well as scientifically-informed and respectful national leadership.
With the roll out of social protection programmes to national scale, questions about implementation and delivery move more and more into the centre of debate (e.g. UNDP 2020; UNDP and UNCDF 2014; Kramon 2019). This concerns in particular the local level, where key processes of implementation are taking place, but where at the same time institutional, operational and financial capacities are often the weakest. While social protection programmes are usually based on a clearly defined set of operational rules and regulations – usually set out in a programme manual – in practice these processes often tend to look quite different. Although many social protection programmes have explicitly excluded traditional authorities from playing an active role in programme delivery, there is ample evidence from across countries that in many local contexts, these ‘informal institutions’ continue to play an important role in the delivery of social protection programmes.
While social protection has become an important policy field in many low- and middle-income countries (LICs and MICs), 55 per cent of the world’s population are still not even covered by one social protection benefit, with 87 per cent of people uncovered in Sub-Saharan Africa and 61 per cent in Asia and the Pacific (ILO 2017). Next to undercoverage, there are other factors that lower the efficiency, effectiveness and social justice of social protection in many countries, such as the lack of a joint vision and policy strategy, fragmented social protection programmes, duplication of administrative systems and efforts and irrational prioritisation in spending. These all call for a stronger systems approach to social protection. This handbook is therefore dedicated to social protection systems, highlighting the relevance but also the challenges that are related to a harmonised and coordinated approach across different social protection instruments, institutions, actors and delivery mechanisms. It takes the reader through all possible aspects of social protection systems.
Actors
(2021)
Social protection is for many international organizations a state’s affair.1 While the state definitely plays an important role, the state is by far not the only actor and there is no predefined institutional arrangement of how social protection should be implemented. An exclusive focus on the state would therefore be short-sighted when assessing and comparing the performance of social protection systems. It is hence important to understand the mix of actors involved, the type of contribution they can make to social protection and their modes of cooperation. This contribution will therefore first sketch out the role and interplay of the main actors in social protection and then challenge some of the common assumptions made around how roles are best allocated in the social protection system concerning the providers of informal social protection, the private sector, civil society organizations (CSO) as well as international actors.
Social transfers
(2021)
Social transfers are on the rise in the Global South but they have also been in the centre of discussion in the Global North as an attractive instrument to buffer new risks and uncertainties in a changing world. They have experienced a dramatic change since the beginning of the new century, starting off as a revolutionary programmatic intervention in countries such as Mexico and Brazil or as a fledgling pilot programme in countries such as Zambia, Kenya and Malawi. They have now become a standard intervention across the globe, a truly global social policy as Hickey and Seekings (2019, 249) coined it. This global trend has been facilitated by donors’ strive to move away from ever recurring humanitarian actions, by increased pressure on donors to show aid effectiveness with the money finally reaching the most vulnerable as well as by international concerted actions such as the United Nations initiative of a global social protection floor.
While there is a standard set of instruments that can be used in social protection systems, this needs to be adapted and combined in different ways in order to serve different groups in society best. The needs of a young person who is just starting life and should not be trapped from birth in unfavourable socio-economic conditions are different from the social protection requirements of a retired person who has finished the active part of life and requires income and care security for an indefinite time period.
Designing a social protection system is of course not only a technical exercise but a very political affair. A systems approach to social protection is shaped by the political elites and the respective coalitions of change, the political institutions as well as the political system of a country. This explains why also seemingly similar countries in terms of their risk profile, poverty situation and economic situation can adopt very different social protection systems or make very different progress with respect to social protection expansion. Not only are the established welfare states of the Global North but also the nascent social protection systems in the Global South a testimony of this variety.
Public preferences
(2021)
For reforms to be acceptable and sustainable in the long run, they should be aligned with public preferences. ‘Preferences’ is a technical term used in social sciences or humanities including for example disciplines such as economics, philosophy or psychology. Broadly speaking, preferences refer to an individual’s judgements on liking one alternative more than others. More specifically, preferences are ‘subjective comparative evaluations, in the form of “Agent prefers X to Y”’ (Hansson and Grüne-Yanoff 2018). Here, we are particularly interested in people’s policy preferences concerning social protection, an area which deserves more attention in policy debates and research.
Der Einsatz von Remote-Laboren in ingenieurwissenschaftlichen Studiengängen ermöglicht Studierenden an einigen Hochschulen die ortsunabhängige Nutzung von Laboren, Maschinen und Robotern. Remote-Labore eignen sich in besonderer Weise dafür, den digitalisierungsbedingten Anforderungen und dem Qualifikationsbedarf aus Wirtschaft und Industrie zu begegnen. Die Onlinebedienung von Laboren bietet viele Ansatzpunkte für den Erwerb digitaler Kompetenzen, wie beispielsweise das Sammeln und Analysieren von Big Data, das Entwickeln geeigneter Schnittstellen für den Onlinezugriff oder den korrekten Einsatz zur Verfügung stehender softwarebasierter Messtechnik. Auch während der Coronapandemie im Sommersemester 2020, als der reguläre Zugang zu Laboren aufgrund der Kontaktbeschränkungen nicht erlaubt war, ermöglichten Remote-Labore den Studierenden praktische Erfahrungen. Jedoch stellen nicht nur die didaktischen, sondern auch die technischen und organisatorischen Aspekte ingenieurwissenschaftliche Studiengänge bei der Umsetzung von Remote-Laboren vor anspruchsvolle Aufgaben. Der nachfolgende Beitrag greift diese Aspekte auf und beschreibt anhand ausgewählter Beispiele, wie die Umsetzung und Integration von Remote-Laboren in Studium und Lehre gelingen kann, aber auch welche Herausforderungen nach wie vor bestehen.
The changing world poses many challenges to public policies, including social policies – among them social protection policies, which are the main focus of this handbook. Here, in this part of the handbook, we take on a number of these challenges: demographic changes and their interaction with social protection policies; roles of social protection in coping with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic (both topics discussed in Chapter 39 and 43 by Woodall); the challenges of globalisation (discussed in Chapter 40 by Betz) and the limitations it imposes on state sovereignty and its ability to decide on the size of publicly funded programmes, in particular social protection; challenges to labour markets and social effective protection coverage posed by automation and digitalisation of businesses (discussed in Chapter 41 by Gassmann) and, last but not least, potential roles of social protection in facilitating population’s adjustments to climate change (discussed in Chapter 42 by Malerba).
What does the right to social security mean if the majority of the world’s population still lives in overwhelming insecurity? What is the significance and role of international social security standards, developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO2) over decades? What are the economic, labour market and political factors determining differences between countries with respect to population coverage by social security schemes and systems? How can past and recent experiences of countries in the Global North and in the Global South be used to expand social security coverage, and what role can be played by the new standard in this area – the ILO Social Protection Floors Recommendation 202, adopted in 2012?