The impacts of welfare reform on recipients of housing assistance

Abstract

This article uses data from randomized evaluations in Indiana and Delaware to address three questions: (1) Are welfare recipients who receive federal housing assistance less employable than recipients who do not? (2) How does the impact of welfare reform compare for families with and without housing assistance? (3) Does welfare reform increase or decrease the use of such assistance?

Although public housing residents may be more disadvantaged than welfare recipients who do not get housing assistance, voucher users and Section 8 project‐based recipients were not. Welfare reform had similar impacts on the earnings and welfare benefits of families that received housing assistance and those that did not. Where impacts did differ, they were larger for families receiving assistance. Welfare reform also reduced the receipt of housing assistance. Families that receive assistance appear to have less financial strain than families that do not, suggesting that assistance may increase overall financial stability.     

Participation of Victims in Pre-Trial Proceedings of the ICC

Victims’ participation is usually celebrated as one ofthe major innovations of the International Criminal Court (ICC)system. It has been regulated in great detail by the draftersof the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidenceof the ICC in relation to trial proceedings. However, few thoughtshave been devoted to the question of how victims’ issuesare dealt with before the commencement of the trial. This contributionseeks to close this gap. It argues that victims have a roleto play in the ICC process from the very beginning of proceedings.Moreover, it seeks to clarify how some of the participatoryrights of victims may be addressed in practice.     

Editor’s Note

In the context of today’s big data and cloud computing, the global flow of data has become a powerful driver for international economic and investment growth. The EU and the U.S. have created two different paths for the legal regulation of the cross-border flow of personal data due to their respective historical traditions and realistic demands. The requirements for data protection have shown significant differences. The EU advocates localization of data and firmly restricts cross-border flow of personal data. The U.S. tends to protect personal data through industry self-regulation and government law enforcement. At the same time, these two paths also merge and supplement with each other. Based on this, China needs to learn from the legal regulatory paths of the EU and the US, respectively, to establish a legal idea that places equal emphasis on personal data protection and the development of the information industry. In terms of domestic law, the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China needs to be improved and supplemented by relevant supporting legislation to improve the operability of the law; the industry self-discipline guidelines should be established; and various types of cross-border data need to be classified and supervised. In terms of international law, it is necessary to participate in international cooperation based on the priority of data sovereignty and promote the signing of bilateral, multilateral agreements, and international treaties on the cross-border flow of personal data.     

War as a pretext to wave the rule of law goodbye? The case for an EU constitutional awakening

The war in Ukraine triggered significant changes at the European Union level. The speed at which the EU has achieved progress on sanctions, migration and defense is particularly impressive. But the Russian aggression against Ukraine has also served as a pretext for putting aside internal discussions about the rule of law, and provided additional political rationales for inaction against Member State governments responsible for the violation of European values, as well as triggered the deepening of double standards in several fields. Against this background, the paper argues that using this crisis as a justification for further inaction in the context of EU values is not a sustainable course of action. The Union must not delay further the need to act to halt the insidious erosion of democracy and the rule of law within its own borders both at the national and supranational level.