Americanising Brexit Britain's Welfare State?

Will the British welfare state revert to an Americanisation trajectory or retain features of the European model after April 2019? After a period of historically prolonged austerity and substantial working age welfare reform, with the UK facing yet another renegotiation of the social contract in a post‐Brexit world, the question of whether there remains space for an alternative to the ‘American’ model is of crucial importance. We argue that there has been a blurring of differences across the American and European welfare states in terms of working age benefits, as most countries have adopted aspects of work‐based conditionality reforms, which attach the receipt of benefits to the active pursuit of work and, to varying extents, the underlying politics of US welfare reform, where there are large coalitions supportive of more punitive policies towards low‐income adults and minorities. These trends are taking place against the backdrop of a second major shift: increasing restrictions on benefits for immigrants. This double narrowing of the welfare state, making benefits conditional for citizens and excluding those who are not citizens, seemingly sets the agenda for a more restrictive post‐Brexit welfare state. The experience of the last two decades suggests, however, that the adoption of the American model has not been wholesale; steering a middle path between punitive conditional American benefits and more traditionally generous universal benefits is on the agenda across advanced welfare states.     

Negotiating universalism in India and Latin America: Fiscal decentralization,subnational politics and social outcomes

ABSTRACT

This is the introductory paper for a special issue which focuses on an exploration of how vertical inter-governmental political and fiscal bargains and horizontal variation in political, social and economic conditions across regions contribute to or undermine the provision of inclusive and sustainable social policies at the subnational level in Latin America and India. The papers incorporate both federal, as well as decentralized unitary states, pointing to common political tensions across unitary and federal settings despite the typically greater institutionalization of regional autonomy in federal countries. Jointly, the papers examine the territorial dimension of universalism and explore, in greater and empirical detail, the causal links between fiscal transfers, social policies and outcomes, highlighting the political dynamics that shape fiscal decentralization reforms and the welfare state. This introductory essay reviews existing scholarship, and highlights the contribution of the special issue to understanding these issues beyond OECD contexts.     

城乡一体化进程中国家法与民间法的冲突及协调

民间法是经过长期的历史积淀所形成的道德习俗、社会规范被逐渐制度化且相对稳定的一种通行做法。民间法仍然被很多农村群众所认可,农民更多的愿意在自身的生活空间中寻求一种秩序,因而国家的法律法令就很难真正地深入到农民的生活中去。国家需要一套协调机制来解决国家法律政策与民间法所存在的冲突与对峙,以对地方传统风俗的有益部分进行法律变通,以促进国家法与民间法的融合。     

对国家被害的初步研究

国家具有政治统治与社会管理双重职能 ,政治统治职能只能以社会管理职能为基础才能实施。被害人学的研究范畴应当是直接遭受犯罪侵害的自然人、法人(单位 )、国家。国家被害客观存在 ,国家是犯罪侵害的基本主体。当前我国的国家被害现象十分严重 ,国家的社会管理职能偏弱 ,已经在一定程度上影响了国家统治职能的实现。法学界必须强化保护国家利益的意识 ,重视对国家被害的研究。     

析法律全球化

随着经济全球化，有西方国家提出了“法律全球化”。然而“法律全球化”是既不合理，又不现实的幻想，对主权国家更是提出了挑战。我国加入了世界贸易组织，“法律全球化”也成为我国法学界日益关注的热点问题。本文对法律全球化的基本问题进行了分析探讨。     

列宁晚年对国家机关改革的理论探索

列宁晚年对苏维埃国家机关存在的种种弊端以及改革国家机关的重要性和迫切性有着清醒的认识。他提出的一系列富有远见的国家机关改革思想，以及对改革过程中可能遇到的风险所作的分析，对推动当前我国国家机构改革仍有着重要的指导意义。     

我国城市土地国有制的演进与由来

城市土地国有制是我国现行宪法明确规定的基本土地制度，是我国整个土地制度的关键和症结所在。在建国之后直至现行宪法颁布之前，尽管经历了多次土地国有化的运动，但至少在宪法和法律上都未否认非国有土地的存在。现行完法中城市土地国有制的规定在制定时就存在着值得商榷之处，并在之后又引发了一系列棘手的问题，尤其在当前的情势下，必须正视并力图解决上述问题。     

市民社会的历史演进理路及法律解读

西方市民社会历经政治自治、经济自治到社会自治依次相继的三个发展阶段,市民社会理论的传统分析模式即"市民社会——政治国家"关系模式现今已失去示范意义。西方市民社会理论经移植后在我国民法领域新时期所呈现出的"市民"与"国家"间冲突的情形下,实体民事法律的制度供给更应考量"市民"与"国家"之间的良性沟通与互动。     

正确认识依法治国与党的领导的关系

正确认识和处理依法治国与党的领导的关系，关乎着依法治国方略的贯彻实施与党的领导和执政地位的加强和改善。依法治国与党的领导既有区别又有统一性，依法治国是加强和改善党的领导的有效途径，加强和改善党的领导是依法治国的根本保证。二是相互依存、相互促进、密不可分。同时，正确认识依法治国与党的领导的关系，还须澄清两种错误认识。一要澄清依法治国会削弱党的领导的错误认识，二要澄清坚持党的领导会妨碍依法治国的错误认识。     

REEVALUATING WHERE WE STAND: A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF AMERICA'S FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEMS

The call for court reform remains critical in the face of the growing complexity of burgeoning family law cases nationwide. Many states have restructured their court systems using the unified family court model, resolving legal, personal, emotional, and social disputes with the aim of improving the well‐being of families and children. Other states utilize the traditional approach, resulting in cases being handled in a fragmented, time‐consuming and expensive manner. In this article, Professor Barbara A. Babb presents the results of her nationwide survey regarding how each state handles family law matters. The survey is a follow‐up to her comprehensive 1998 survey and her 2002 survey update. The results of the recent analysis reveal that a total of thirty‐eight states now have either statewide family courts, family courts in selected areas of the state, or pilot or planned family courts, representing seventy‐five percent of states. The number of states without a specialized or separate system to handle family law matters has decreased from seventeen states in 1998 to thirteen in 2006. These changes are significant when one considers the complexities involved in court reform. The need for court reform remains an urgent one, as family law cases occupy a significant percentage of court dockets across the country. Families and children deserve a court system where justice is effective and efficient and where their legal, personal, emotional, and social needs are resolved in a therapeutic and holistic manner.