世界経済・社会統計 = World development indicators

It comes as something ofa surprise to reflect that the New York Review ofBooks is now over twenty years old. Even people of my generation (that is, old enough to remember the revolutionary 196os but not young enough to have taken a very exciting part in them) think of the paper as eternally youthful. In fact, it has gone through years of relatively quiet life, yet, as always in a competitive journalistic market, it is the controversies that attract the interest of the reader and to which the history (especially an admittedly impressionistic survey that tries to include something of the intellectual context in which a journal has operated) must give some attention. Not all the attacks which the New York Review has attracted, both early in its career and more recently, are worth more than a brief summary. What do we now make, for example, of Richard Kostelanetz's forthright accusation that 'The New York Review was from its origins destined to publicize Random House's (and especially [Jason] Epstein's) books and writers'?1 Well, simply that, even if the statistics bear out the charge (and Kostelanetz provides some suggestive evidence to support it, at least with respect to some early issues), there is nothing surprising in a market economy about a publisher trying to push his books through the pages of a journal edited by his friends. True, the New York Review has not had room to review more than around fifteen books in each issue and there could be a bias in the selection of

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3507774.pdf

The New York Review of Books

/pdf/the-precariat-the-new-dangerous-class-3tq7b7h7fg.pdf

The Precariat. The New Dangerous Class

세계화가 과연 하나의 독립변수로 사용하기에 충분할 정도로 그 의미가 명확하게 규명된 과학적 개념인가의 여부는 학계의 지속적인 의문으로 남아 있다. 특히 최근에는 현저하게 드러나고 있는 각종 반세계화 현상을 바탕으로 세계화에 대한 반론이 거세지고 있으며 일부 세계화론 주창자들조차 ‘현실’로서 세계화 현상에 대한 회의적 시각을 표출하고 있어 그 의문은 더욱 커지고 있다. 이에 따라 세계화를 설명 변수로 삼는 모든 연구 영역에서 세계화의 의미와 세계화와 관련된 연구 성과를 반추해 볼 필요성도 커지고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 세계화의 의미 분석을 바탕으로 세계화를 안보환경 변화의 독립변수로 삼는 연구의 동향을 분석하고 연구의 방향을 제시하는데 있다. 세계화는 그 설명적 가치와 규범적 판단을 둘러싸고 논란이 계속되고 있는 개념이다. 세계화는 세계화론자를 중심으로 발전되어 온 개념이지만 이들 사이에서도 개념에 대한 합의는 존재하지 않는다. 세계화는 가장 단순하게는 하나의 현상 혹은 사건으로 간주되기도 하지만, 세계화의 본질을 규명하려는 입장에서는 세계화의 원인과 영향에 대한 인과관계는 물론 사회관계 본질이나 권력관계 변화를 적시하는 개념으로 취급하여 왔다. 그러나 세계화를 개념화하려는 노력은 수많은 하부 현상을 단일 요소로 설명해야 하며, 역으로 개념 속에 혼재되어 있는 세계화의 원인, 결과, 설명 및 규범적 판단 요소를 단순화해야 한다는 과제를 안고 있다. 특히 원인과 결과가 혼재되어 있는 세계화 개념은 현상 분석을 위한 설명체제 구성에 가장 큰 장애요인이 되고 있다. 세계화와 안보와의 관계를 다루는 연구는 대체로 세계화에 관한 중도론적 입장에서 안보에 관한 낙관론을 피하고 새로운 위협을 제시하는데 초점을 맞추는데, 이러한 경향은 안보연구에서 세계화를 가장 단순한 수준에서 정의하는 데에서 비롯된다. 그러나 지나치게 단순한 세계화 개념을 적용하는 안보연구는 질적으로 새로운 현상인 세계화를 여전히 국가중심적 시각에서 다루고 모든 안보위협을 테러리즘의 문제로 축소하려는 환원주의의 문제를 야기한다. 이러한 문제를 극복하기 위해서는 세계화 개념의 불완전성을 염두에 둔 세계화 개념에 대한 접근과 일관된 세계화 개념 적용이 요구된다. 또한 세계화 현상으로부터 직접적인 안보 사안을 도출하는 노력에서 한 차원 더 나아가 안보연구의 새로운 방향을 제시해 줄 수 있는 안보환경 변화의 전체적 특성을 분석하는 포괄적 연구가 요구된다.

세계화(globalization)와 안보 연구

Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. Janet C. Gornick and Marcia K. Meyers. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 2003. 392 pp. ISBN 0-87154-356-7. $39.95 (cloth). This book begins with the phrase "imagine a world," which aptly describes the authors' aim. The "world" that Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers imagine is a "dual-earner-dual-carer" U.S. society, a "fully gender-egalitarian, economically secure, caring society" (p. 4). They acknowledge the enormous magnitude of transformation that would be required for such an end vision to be achieved, but point out that without a clear end vision, such a transformation would be impossible. Gornick and Meyers propose that a dual-earner-dual-carer society can be achieved through three key changes: 1) Shifting several hours per week of men's time from paid work to care for children, and a smaller number of women's hours from home to paid work 2) Creating new employment arrangements to allow men and women to take time for parenting without excessive financial or advancement penalties in the workplace 3) Reducing standard working hours and expanding paid family leave and public funding for child care Although not given a great deal of space in the book, I was intrigued by Gornick and Meyers's analysis of tension among three discourses about work and family. Advocates for children tend to favor policies such as child tax credits and maternity leaves that make it easier for mothers to stay at home with young children, temporarily opting out of the labor market. Discourse about work-family conflict tends to favor policies that make it easier for women to be workers and parents simultaneously, such as part-time work, job sharing, and flexible schedules. Feminists emphasize the pursuit of gender equality by improving access to high-quality nonparental care for children and access to high-quality jobs for women. The problem with each of these solutions, according to Gornick and Meyers, is that they pit gender equality against the interests of children, in each case sacrificing one interest in favor of the other, and in all cases sidestepping the need for change in men's behavior. The dual-earner-dual-carer vision is an effort to simultaneously pursue both goals by transforming both men's and women's roles. Much of the book is devoted to articulating shortcomings in U.S. policies relative to other industrialized nations in North America or Europe. While the theme is familiar, the book includes an expansive, data-driven, and clear articulation of the evidence, drawing on national data sets and the content of specific regulations in several countries. For example, the U.S. spends $650 per child and 0.5% of its GDP on children, less than half the amounts allocated by countries in Scandinavia and Western Europe. Policy data are juxtaposed with an embarrassing litany of poor outcomes for children in the United States relative to their peers in other countries: high rates of low birth weight and mortality among infants, low achievement scores in science and math and high levels of television watching among school children, and high rates of teen pregnancy. …

Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment

This chapter investigates the diversity and divergence of three sets of family policy indicators across the 50 United States: money, services, and time. Our findings show that the 50 United States vary considerably in their family policy packages. States have become more dissimilar over time with respect to social assistance transfers and statutory minimum wages, but have become more similar in their subsidization of low-pay employment. Moreover, states vary greatly in their levels of support for early childhood education and healthcare. State-level variation in out-of-pocket medical spending has more than doubled from 1980 to 2015, in large part due to some states deciding to expand Medicaid access from 2009 onward. Despite large diversity and some divergence in states’ family policy packages, post-tax/transfer poverty rates have remained relatively stable over time. This is partially due to an increase in federally funded transfer programs mitigating the social consequences of state-level diversity.

/pdf/family-policy-in-the-united-states-state-level-variation-in-2ni6fffhv9.pdf

Family Policy in the United States: State-Level Variation in Policy and Poverty Outcomes from 1980 to 2015

This fact sheet provides an analysis of the poverty reduction effects of a set of policy elements in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, legislation to provide economic relief amidst the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. The projected annual poverty rates for 2021 are listed below.

The Potential Poverty Reduction Effect of the American Rescue Plan

We investigate the effects of the expanded 2021 Child Tax Credit (CTC) on material hardship among households with children over April 2021-May 2022, using the Census Household Pulse Survey and difference-in-difference analyses of household types with different eligibility. Monthly CTC payments (July-December 2021) reduced food insufficiency by at least 2.4 pp (20 percent); the spring 2022 lump-sum payment reduced the likelihood that households were behind on rent by at least 1.2 pp (10 percent). Results are consistent with spending lump sums differently from monthly payments, the former going disproportionately toward arrears and the latter toward ongoing food/nutrition costs.

The Effects of the Monthly and Lump-Sum Child Tax Credit Payments on Food and Housing Hardship

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 famously “ended welfare as we [knew] it” by replacing the state-operated Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with a revised funding scheme called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In the summer of 2012, controversy erupted over a memorandum issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), concerning state options for TANF performance reporting. Opponents of the Obama administration claimed the policy initiative specified in the memorandum signaled a fundamental change in direction of the national welfare policy established by PRWORA—that it “gutted” welfare reform. The memorandum has not (as of 2016) been rescinded, and the issues raised in the ensuing controversy remain unresolved. We review the controversy. We argue that while there is some justification in criticism of the Obama administration's strategy, the initiative addressed an important problem: the inadequacy of the program's performance measure given the variation in resources available to states in meeting the program's goals. The ACF memo was in our judgment a responsible step toward finding methods for improving TANF performance and, as conducted, the guts debate retarded this search.

Zachary Parolin

Papers

Family Policy in the United States: State-Level Variation in Policy and Poverty Outcomes from 1980 to 2015

The Potential Poverty Reduction Effect of the American Rescue Plan

The Effects of the Monthly and Lump-Sum Child Tax Credit Payments on Food and Housing Hardship

Restoring the Entrails of Welfare Reform

Platform Work and Economic Insecurity in Italy