农民社会流动与苏南社会政策选择——以昆山为例

江苏省昆山市对农民在社会流动中出现的二难问题进行认真反思,冲破传统制度文化束缚,打破心理区隔,树立平等观念,做到对农民工三个重新定位,并在政策上做到农民工与本地市民三个同步,从而推动了城市化健康发展,促进了和谐社会的构建。     

Presumptions,Burdens, and Best Interests in Relocation Law

The pure “best interests” approach to relocation law is a failure. It is unpredictable and expensive, increasing conflict and discouraging settlement. The “fundamental questions” proposed by Parkinson and Cashmore in their article will not reform the law. Real reform will require the use of presumptions or burdens to guide best interests. “Presumptions” are not “rules,” but only starting points. No simple presumption “for” or “against” all relocations can be justified, but there are large categories of cases that do warrant presumptions: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers. The first three involve presumptions against relocation, while the last—the largest category—warrants a presumption that relocation is in the best interests of the child, unless the contrary is proved. There will remain a small minority of in‐between cases where none of these presumptions will operate, recognizing the limits of our general knowledge. It is time to move the relocation reform debate beyond pure “best interests,” to the next stage, to a serious discussion of which cases warrant presumptions, and of what strength.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Pure best interests approach to relocation law is a failure
• Presumptions or burdens needed to reform the law, but not just “for” or “against”
• Presumptions are identified for four categories of relocation cases: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers

     

农民工的进城方式与职业流动——两代农民工的比较分析

利用社会关系网络结伴外出、依靠"亲友介绍"工作是两代农民工初次外出与求职的共同特点,不同之处在于第一代农民工进城主要追求经济利益,新生代农民工则主要追求个人发展,农民工外出倾向于低龄化,童工现象比较严重。农民工进城之后,"跳槽"频繁,就业层次低,多数农民工的职业流动只是一种"平移",并没有带来职业地位的提升。相比较而言,新生代农民工就业层次比第一代农民工高。     

Moving up versus moving out: Neighborhood effects in housing mobility programs

Abstract

This article suggests ways to better design, conduct, and interpret evaluations of the effects of housing mobility programs on participants, with emphasis on how to isolate neighborhood effects. It reviews earlier critiques of neighborhood effects research and discusses the key assumptions of housing mobility programs—about the benefits of affluent neighbors, the spatial organization of opportunity for the urban poor, and the meanings of “neighborhood” to residents, researchers, and policy makers.

Studying mobility contexts, especially in suburban areas, offers special challenges to researchers. More research is needed that looks at residents’ social ties and uses mixed‐methods approaches. Ethnographic data, in particular, would enhance the validity of the quantitative data that now dominate studies of neighborhood effects. Adding substantially to what we know about the processes or mechanisms—the “how” of neighborhood effects—mixed‐methods approaches would also make research much more useful to policy makers and program managers.     

Moving out of poverty: Expanding mobility and choice through tenant‐based housing assistance

Abstract

Historically, federal housing policy has contributed to the concentration of poverty in urban America. Moving out of poverty is not the right answer for every low‐income family, but tenant‐based housing assistance (Section 8 certificates and vouchers) has tremendous potential to help families move to healthier neighborhoods. This article explores the role of tenant‐based housing assistance in addressing the problem of concentrated inner‐city poverty.

The Section 8 program by itself does not ensure access to low‐poverty neighborhoods, particularly for minority families. Supplementing certificates and vouchers with housing counseling and search assistance can improve their performance; a growing number of assisted housing mobility initiatives are now in place across the country. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) should continue to fund these initiatives and increase their number over time. HUD should also strengthen incentives for all housing authorities to improve locational outcomes in their Section 8 programs.     

Comment on Bruce J. Katz and Margery Austin Turner's “Who should run the housing voucher program? A reform proposal”: Why public housing authorities remain the best solution for running the housing voucher program

Abstract

Katz and Turner propose that the Section 8 program be administered regionally at the metropolitan level by a single organization awarded the contract through a competitive bidding process. We disagree. Local public housing authorities have been successful in providing family housing choice and moving families from the worst neighborhoods through the Section 8 program. The factors that inhibit mixed‐income communities and family mobility, resulting in concentration of poverty, are beyond the control of these authorities and will be affected little by a change in administration. Moreover, the additional cost of these changes would decrease the number of families served and at the same time increase bureaucracy.

We welcome the discussion the proposal has caused. Misperceptions exist about the program, even among those close to it. True, effective program reform can be engendered only by an honest dialogue among housing advocates, administrators, and consumers, both tenants and owners.     

Local response to federal changes in the housing voucher program: A case study of intraregional cooperation

Abstract

The desire to increase residential choice for Section 8 voucher clients resulted in the adoption of portability by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Portability allows voucher holders to move between the jurisdictions of local housing authorities (HAs). InterHA cooperation could ease the administrative and financial burdens imposed by portability and improve service to voucher recipients. However, voluntary regional cooperation is rare.

This article presents a case study of a successful, voluntary, intraregional cooperative agreement among HAs. Theoretical and empirical analyses suggest that a cooperative agreement is more likely to develop voluntarily if two conditions are present: rational self‐interest and shared norms and trust among the managers. Agreements can ease the burdens associated with portability, but it is important for the parties to regularly assess implementation issues to ensure the agreement's continuing effectiveness. The article concludes with policy implications based on the findings from this research.     

Comment on Jill Khadduri's “should the housing voucher program become a state‐administered block grant?”

Abstract

The stated goal of the Housing Act of 1949 is “a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family.” It is time that we delivered on that commitment. Contrary to popular opinion, this does not require spending more money on housing assistance. It can be achieved without additional funds by shifting all funds from less cost‐effective methods for delivering housing assistance to choice‐based vouchers as soon as current contractual commitments permit and by gradually reducing the large subsidies to current voucher recipients. The proposal to replace the Housing Choice Voucher Program with a block grant to states can contribute to this goal by precluding the use of the block grant funds for project‐based assistance, increasing the targeting of assistance to the poorest families, and including the fraction of recipients with extremely low incomes in the formula for determining the performance rating of state programs.     

Section 8 and Movement to Job Opportunity: Experience after Welfare Reform in Kansas City

Abstract

This research addresses the extent to which tenant‐based rental assistance, before and after welfare reform, helps households move to areas with greater opportunities for employment. It was thought that the threat of losing their welfare benefits would encourage participants in the Section 8 program to use the mobility it offers to move to neighborhoods with greater opportunities for employment.

Two samples of Section 8 program participants, one taken before welfare reform and the other taken after it was enacted, have been examined. With the strong economy after welfare reform, more Section 8 households are employed and fewer are on welfare. However, the analysis finds that, independent of welfare reform, households did not use their housing subsidy to move to areas with greater opportunities for employment. Program participants typically remained in racially concentrated areas of the central city, away from those neighborhoods with job growth or large numbers of jobs.     

Searching for Livelihood Security: Land and Mobility in Burkina Faso

The incremental approach to land reform in sub-Saharan Africa constitutes a rapprochement between proponents of the introduction of private property regimes and their critics. The incrementalists recognise that local tenure regimes can change and that they should be the basis of any land-reform programme. This article argues that an important gap remains with regard to the dynamics of tenure arrangements observed in a highly insecure environment, because the incremental approach retains a western-type of tenure security as its ultimate goal. Geographic mobility of actors and fields is essential to the protection of livelihoods in the north-central region of Burkina Faso. This mobility not only is made possible by the prevailing land tenure regime but also underpins its flexibility and allows the merging and shifting of rights. All of this argues against the establishment of western-type tenure security and in favour of the maintenance of flexible resource tenure regimes - a model discussed in recent years in relation to pastoral land use in drylands. This would have the additional advantage of integrating understandings of, and approaches to, pastoralists' and crop-farmers' land use in regions where these population groups already intermingle.