Fachbereich Sozialpolitik und Soziale Sicherung
Refine
H-BRS Bibliography
- yes (59)
Departments, institutes and facilities
Document Type
- Article (20)
- Part of a Book (14)
- Working Paper (6)
- Book (monograph, edited volume) (5)
- Conference Object (5)
- Contribution to a Periodical (5)
- Book review (3)
- Report (1)
Year of publication
- 2021 (59) (remove)
Keywords
- Gesundheitswesen (2)
- Kenya (2)
- Social Protection (2)
- Abhängigkeitserkrankungen (1)
- Africa (1)
- Arbeitspsychologie (1)
- Arbeitswelt (1)
- Aufgabenkritik (1)
- Comparative institutional analysis (1)
- Corona-Pandemie (1)
Kinder – unsere Zukunft!
(2021)
The universal basic income grant (UBIG): A comparative review of the characteristics and impact
(2021)
In recent years, public debates, pilot projects and academic research have internationally boosted the prominence of the universal basic income grant (UBIG) as a policy option. Despite this prominence, the arguments and evidence of the UBIG discussion have not been systematically put forward and discussed in light of the different UBIG conceptual understandings and applications. This paper adds value to the debate by systematic presenting the social, economical and political arguments in support of and against a UBIG. It furthermore discusses the UBIG dimensions/characteristics and variations, and also pose questions about whether all the UBIG experiments can really be classified as a UBIG. Antagonist of a UBIG often raise concerns about the negative effect of the lack of conditions and targeting in a UBIG. Since evidence on the impact of UBIG is limited, this paper turns to the evidence base on unconditional cash transfers and conditional cash transfers. The results show that it is the cash transfer rather than the conditionality and targeting that produce positive outcomes in areas of personal wellbeing.
Nudging stellt eine Methode zur positiven Verhaltensbeeinflussung unserer Mitmenschen dar. Mit diesem Instrument kann das Sicherheits- und Gesundheitsverhalten von Arbeitnehmern gestärkt werden. Allerdings findet sie trotz intensiver Forschung bislang wenig Anwendung im betrieblichen Kontext. Daher lautet die Forschungsfrage dieser Arbeit: „Wie lässt sich Nudging seitens der Unternehmen als Präventionsmaßnahme während der Corona-Pandemie einsetzen?“. Mit der Übertragung von Nudging in der Arbeitswelt auf die derzeitigen Herausforderungen der aktuellen Corona-Pandemie leistet diese Arbeit einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Entwicklung neuer Präventionsmaßnahmen in Unternehmen. In der Arbeit konnte festgestellt werden, dass die Entwicklung von Nudges im Unternehmen unter Einbeziehung der Mitarbeiter in einem proaktiven und partizipativen Prozess stattfinden sollte. Mithilfe eines solchen Prozesses werden Gründe für das mögliche Fehlverhalten der Arbeitnehmer analysiert. Anschließend sollten Nudging-Techniken eingesetzt werden, die genau an diesen Punkten anknüpfen – am Fehlverhalten der Menschen. Über den partizipativen Nudging-Prozess wird die Akzeptanz der Arbeitnehmer im Hinblick auf etwaige Maßnahmen gefördert. Es wird am reflektierten Entscheidungssystem der Arbeitnehmer angesetzt. Unter Berücksichtigung der Corona-Pandemie sollte im betrieblichen Kontext zur Förderung des Sicherheitsverhaltens besonders auf den Wirkmechanismus „Norms“ gesetzt werden. Im Home-Office eignen sich aufgrund der Distanz zu den Arbeitnehmern Nudges mit technischer Natur, wie z.B. automatisierte Anmeldungen zu Maßnahmen des Gesundheitsmanagements. Hier greift der Wirkmechanismus „Defaults“. Diese Bachelorarbeit wurde als theoretische Arbeit auf Grundlage einer Literaturrecherche verfasst.
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.
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.
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.
The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration defines Global Skill Partnerships (GSP) as an innovative means of strengthen skills development among origin countries and countries of destination in mutually beneficial manner. However, GSPs are very limited in number and scope, and empirical analyses of them are, to date, relatively rare. This study helps fill this gap in data by presenting and examining existing GSPs or GSP-like approaches (e.g., transnational training partnerships). The aim of the study is to take stock of the various conceptual discourses on and practical experience with transnational skill partnerships. Using Kosovo as a case study, the study details the structure of such partnerships and the processes they entail. It documents the experience of those involved and catalogues the factors contributing to success. On this basis, the authors propose a means of categorizing the various practices that will help structure the empirical diversity of such approaches and render them conceptually feasible: Transnational Skills and Mobility Partnerships (TSMP).
This exciting and innovative Handbook provides readers with a comprehensive and globally relevant overview of the instruments, actors and design features of social protection systems, as well as their application and impacts in practice. It is the first book that centres around system building globally, a theme that has gained political importance yet has received relatively little attention in academia.
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.
Der Öffentliche Gesundheitsdienst (ÖGD) übernimmt eine wichtige Funktion in Sachen Bevölkerungsgesundheit und wird häufig, neben ambulanter und stationärer Versorgung, als ‚dritte Säule‘ im deutschen Gesundheitswesen beschrieben. Diese sprachlich gleichwertige Positionierung spiegelt sich allerdings in der Realität nicht wider, im Vergleich ist seine Stellung eher schwach. In der Frage, welche Ursachen hierfür vorliegen, könnte eine Hypothese lauten, dass ein diffuses Aufgabenprofil einen negativen Einfluss auf seine Stellung ausübt. Um diesen möglichen Einfluss näher zu untersuchen, lautet die Forschungsfrage: „Wie lässt sich die Stellung des ÖGD innerhalb des deutschen Gesundheitswesens anhand seines Aufgabenprofils aus kontingenztheoretischer Perspektive erklären?“.
Zu deren Beantwortung wird zunächst die Ausgestaltung der aktuellen Aufgabenprofile erhoben und verglichen. Anschließend untersucht die Arbeit mit Hilfe der organisationssoziologischen Kontingenztheorie, welche situativen Einflussfaktoren sich möglicherweise auf Aufgabenprofil und damit auch die Stellung des ÖGD ausgewirkt haben. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass Veränderungen in den Aufgaben teilweise recht deutlich in Verbindung gebracht werden können mit Veränderungen der Organisationssituation, auch lässt sich ein Zusammenhang zwischen Aufgabenprofil und Stellung vermuten. Soll dem ÖGD in Zukunft wieder eine stärkere Bedeutung zukommen, so ist es neben einer gewissen Vereinheitlichung der Aufgabenprofile von großer Bedeutung, ihm wieder exklusive Aufgaben zuzusprechen. Diese könnten insbesondere in den Bereichen Planung, Koordination und Steuerung, Datengewinnung und aufbereitung oder darin liegen, sich wieder verstärkt auf Bevölkerungsgruppen zu fokussieren, welche nicht durch andere Bereiche abgedeckt werden. Hierfür müssen die nötigen Ressourcen zur Verfügung stehen: Neben den bereits beschlossenen Unterstützungsleistungen gilt es insbesondere in Bezug auf die personelle Ausstattung, den ÖGD langfristig attraktiv zu gestalten. Dazu kann eine aufgewertete Stellung sowie eine verbesserte Situation in den einzelnen Behörden einen großen Teil beitragen.
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.