美欧收入分配政策的差异及其成因

美国在收入分配上坚持向富人倾斜的政策,欧洲各国坚持收入分配均等化的政策;美国贫富两级分化继续加深,欧洲各国的贫富差距则控制在比较合理的范围内.形成这种差异的原因是欧洲工人阶级反对资本主义的斗争卓有成效,社会民主党长期执政,受社会主义影响较深;美国工人阶级斗争力度不强,右翼势力强大,受自由主义影响深重.收入分配政策上的差异,实质上反映了欧美普通民众在社会政治地位、经济地位上的差异.     

Personal Income Tax Policy in China and the United States: A Comparative Analysis

Personal income tax has grown in importance in China's revenue system. Revenue from personal income tax was more than 2 trillion RMB yuan for the first half of 2008, a 27 percent increase from the previous year. And while similarities exist between China and the United States, distinctive features separate the two. Hua Xu of Auburn University at Montgomery and Huiyu Cui of Dongbei University of Finance and Economics underscore the need for equitable personal income tax reform in China. Using lessons from the United States, an agenda for future research on tax policy is outlined.     

Packaging Support for Low‐Income Families: Policy Variation across the United States

This paper addresses a gap in state‐level comparative social policy research by analyzing policies that support low‐income families with children. Variation in state policy “packages” is measured by considering three characteristics of 11 social programs. Individual measures of policy are found to be weakly and inconsistently inter‐correlated at the state level, but when cluster analysis is used to analyze multiple dimensions simultaneously, five clusters or regime types are identified that have distinctive policy approaches. These range from the most minimal provisions, to conservative approaches emphasizing private responsibility, to integrated approaches that combine generous direct assistance with employment support and policies that enforce family responsibility. A comparison of a subset of programs at two points in time (1994 and 1998) suggests that states made substantial changes in cash assistance and taxation policies after the 1996 federal welfare reforms. The magnitude and direction of these changes remained consistent with the state clusters identified in 1994. © 2001 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

Natalist Policies in the United States

This retrospective reviews the policies that affect the fertility of American women, both policies designed to alter fertility intentionally as well as those that change childbearing unintentionally. Becker's seminal work on the economics of fertility serves as the theoretical foundation for this literature. After describing Becker's economic model, we review the empirical literature on fertility responses to social welfare policies, tax policies, the mandated health care coverage of infertility treatments, abortion policies, and government‐sponsored family planning services. We also address several Supreme Court cases that have played an important role in the interpretation of these policies. Where relevant, this retrospective describes the distributional effects of these natalist policies. We also discuss the limitations of this literature and identify important gaps. Unlike most developed countries that have created strategies to increase fertility to support their ageing population, the United States spends considerably less time and thought on this issue. Our reading of the literature suggests that we have many public policies that have affected and continue to influence the fertility choices made by families in the United States and that this is a topical area that deserves more attention in policy debates.     

Intergovernmental councils in the United States

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on intergovernmental councils (IGCs) in the United States in which prominent state-level executive politicians, that is, governors, play a leadership role. In the US case, these IGCs developed out of a desire to facilitate interstate information exchanges and a need for state governments to join forces to protect their autonomy vis-à-vis the federal government. In this latter role, the councils function as lobbyists for state government interests. The research question driving the analysis has to do with impact: what difference do executive-led IGCs make, either vertically or horizontally, in the US federal system? The question of impact is particularly relevant because growing partisan polarization in contemporary federal and state political institutions complicates collective action by states.