公共财政
所有这一切发展的原则,那些能工作应该也说这句话:“为那些能工作,安全对于那些不能(DSS,1998 b)。Jessop(2000,第181页)指出,如果“熊彼特的workfarepost-national政权”的转变,这将导致更多的强调中的年轻失业者和单身父母进入劳动力市场’than退休或长期关心残疾人或老年人”,这意味着将会有更多的强调降低成本的公共照顾disabledor退休的吗?
我们希望这是真的就残疾人或退休的“公共财政上的“非生产性”流失,然而新Labourpolicy里强调了需要让残疾人工作(DSS,1998)。社会服务受到指示,采取领导起草联合投资计划福利工作人结合卫生部门和教育和就业机构。
应用程序的新劳工政策的概念在本文中帮助我们得出结论,他们应该改变了商品化的福利制度为手段,吸引劳动力市场那些以前免除因生育或残疾。随着长期失业
在岗工人福利出现作为一个创新意味着为了消除“失业陷阱”和增加就业收入和福利收入之间的差异。然而,随着福利被删除,创建新的陷阱的可能性是巨大的,会导致抑制higher-waged就业从保证就业。支持市场,活跃的国家干预可以重新配置为进一步干预,因此本质上是矛盾的。
公共财政
All of this evolves from the principle that those who are able to work should work which is also stated in the phrase: ‘work for those who can, security forthose who cannot’ (DSS, 1998b).Jessop (2000, p. 181) suggests that if the shift to the ‘Schumpeterian workfarepost-national regime’ is made, it will lead to more emphasis on the integrationof the young unemployed and single parents into the labour market‘than on the retired or long term cares of the disabled or elderly’ that means there will be more emphasis on decreasing the public costs of caring for the disabledor retired’?
We would expect this to be true as far as the disabled or retired are seenas an ‘unproductive’ drain on the public purse, and yet New Labourpolicy has laid emphasis on the need to draw disabled people into work (DSS, 1998). Social services have been given instructions for taking lead in drawing up joint investment plans on welfare to work people in combination with health authorities and education and employment agencies.
An application of the concepts in this article of new labor policies should help us to conclude that they have changed the benefit system into means of commodification, drawing to labor market those who were previously exempted from it due to of parenthood or disability. Along with long term unemployed
In-work benefits were appeared as an innovative means in order to remove the ‘unemployment trap’ and the increase the differences between employment income and benefit income. However, as the benefits are removed, possibilities of creation of new trap is huge that can lead to a disincentive move to the higher-waged employment from low-waged employment.In support of the market, active state intervention can be reconfigured for further interventions and thus prove to be inherently contradictory.
