Just Visiting? The Weakening of Social Protection in a Mobile World

Author(s):  
Keith Banting ◽  
Edward Koning

Recent scholarship has become increasingly attentive to the way different welfare states include or exclude newcomers. Much of this literature has focused on the access to benefits granted to immigrants with a permanent status. While this emphasis is understandable, it ignores the growing ranks of individuals who do not settle permanently, either because they are only given temporary status or because they choose to move on. This paper helps to fill this gap by comparing four countries that are very different in the way they treat temporary migrants: Sweden, Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. We find that migrants on a temporary permit are among the most weakly protected in each of these countries, but that the exclusion is more severe in countries where politicians face considerable political pressure to appear tough on immigration and where there are few institutional protections to protect temporary residents from such pressures. These findings highlight both the fragility of social protection in a world of mobility and the importance of firmly entrenched protections of equal treatment.

Author(s):  
Myrna FLORES ◽  
Matic GOLOB ◽  
Doroteja MAKLIN ◽  
Christopher TUCCI

In recent years, the way organizations innovate and develop new solutions has changed considerably. Moving from ‘behind the closed doors’ style of innovating to open innovation where collaboration with outsiders is encouraged, organizations are in the pursuit of more effective ways to accelerate their innovation outcomes. As a result, organizations are establishing creative and entrepreneurial ecosystems, which not only empower employees but also involve many others to co-create new solutions. In this paper, we present a methodology for organizing hackathons, i.e. competition-based events where small teams work over a short period of time to ideate, design, prototype and test their ideas following a user-centric approach to solve a specific challenge. This paper also provides insights into two different hackathons organized in the United Kingdom, and Mexico, as well as a series of 5 hackathons organized in Argentina, Mexico, Switzerland, United Kingdom and in Senegal.


Author(s):  
Di Long ◽  
Suzanne Polinder ◽  
Gouke J. Bonsel ◽  
Juanita A. Haagsma

Abstract Purpose To assess the test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L and the reworded Quality of Life After Traumatic Brain Injury Overall Scale (QOLIBRI-OS) for the general population of Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (UK). Methods The sample contains 1864 members of the general population (aged 18–75 years) of Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK who completed a web-based questionnaire at two consecutive time points. The survey included items on gender, age, level of education, occupational status, household annual income, chronic health status, and the EQ-5D-5L and reworded QOLIBRI-OS instrument. Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, EQ-5D-5L summary index, EQ VAS, reworded QOLIBRI-OS dimensions and reworded QOLIBRI-OS level sum score was examined by Gwet’s Agreement Coefficient (Gwet’s AC) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Results Gwet’s AC ranged from 0.64 to 0.97 for EQ-5D-5L dimensions. The ICC ranged from 0.73 to 0.84 for the EQ-5D-5L summary index and 0.61 to 0.68 for EQ VAS in the three countries. Gwet’s AC ranged from 0.35 to 0.55 for reworded QOLIBRI-OS dimensions in the three countries. The ICC ranged from 0.69 to 0.77 for reworded QOLIBRI-OS level sum score. Conclusion Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L administered via a web-based questionnaire was substantial to almost perfect for the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, good for EQ-5D-5L summary index, and moderate for the EQ VAS. However, test–retest reliability was less satisfactory for the reworded QOLIBRI-OS. This indicates that the web-based EQ-5D-5L is a reliable instrument for the general population, but further research of the reworded QOLIBRI-OS is required.


EBioMedicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 103420
Author(s):  
Pauline Versteegen ◽  
Marta Valente Pinto ◽  
Alex M. Barkoff ◽  
Pieter G.M. van Gageldonk ◽  
Jan van de Kassteele ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 575-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
IAIN McLEAN ◽  
JENNIFER NOU

Recent veto player work argues that majoritarian regimes such as the United Kingdom have better fiscal discipline and smaller welfare states than proportional regimes with more veto players. An analytic narrative of the failure of land value taxation in the United Kingdom between 1909 and 1914 shows, however, that it failed not because of previously advanced reasons, but because the number of veto players in British politics was sharply increased. This increase in veto player numbers prevented a tax increase. All seven of the conventional reasons for characterizing the United Kingdom as a low-n veto player regime failed to hold between 1906 and 1914. Observable implications discussed include the need to review the entire history of British politics in this period in the light of the temporary increase in veto players; and the ambiguous implications of number of veto players for fiscal discipline.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document