“铁棒”还是“滤器”?英国和意大利的福利制度

E. Chase, J. Allsopp
{"title":"“铁棒”还是“滤器”?英国和意大利的福利制度","authors":"E. Chase, J. Allsopp","doi":"10.46692/9781529209051.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores core differences in how young people experienced the asylum/immigration and social care nexus in Italy and the United Kingdom. Both systems had intrinsic advantages and inadequacies that created different kinds of opportunities for individuals at different points in their migration journeys. Of most significance is the fact that the two countries' immigration and welfare regimes differed so substantially in the first place. This finding challenges the notion of a common European asylum system, and common standards across the European Union (EU) for upholding the rights of unaccompanied minors and children more broadly. The experiences of the young people in the study also challenge several assumptions regarding the traditional welfare regime typologies that have been used by some to account for differences in support provision between EU member states.","PeriodicalId":232437,"journal":{"name":"Youth Migration and the Politics of Wellbeing","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Iron Rod’ or ‘Colander’? Welfare Regimes in England and Italy\",\"authors\":\"E. Chase, J. Allsopp\",\"doi\":\"10.46692/9781529209051.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter explores core differences in how young people experienced the asylum/immigration and social care nexus in Italy and the United Kingdom. Both systems had intrinsic advantages and inadequacies that created different kinds of opportunities for individuals at different points in their migration journeys. Of most significance is the fact that the two countries' immigration and welfare regimes differed so substantially in the first place. This finding challenges the notion of a common European asylum system, and common standards across the European Union (EU) for upholding the rights of unaccompanied minors and children more broadly. The experiences of the young people in the study also challenge several assumptions regarding the traditional welfare regime typologies that have been used by some to account for differences in support provision between EU member states.\",\"PeriodicalId\":232437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Youth Migration and the Politics of Wellbeing\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Youth Migration and the Politics of Wellbeing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46692/9781529209051.005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Youth Migration and the Politics of Wellbeing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46692/9781529209051.005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章探讨了年轻人在意大利和英国如何经历庇护/移民和社会关怀联系的核心差异。这两种制度都有其内在的优点和不足之处,为个人在其移民旅程的不同阶段创造了不同的机会。最重要的是,两国的移民和福利制度从一开始就存在巨大差异。这一发现挑战了欧洲共同庇护制度的概念,以及欧盟(EU)在更广泛地维护无人陪伴的未成年人和儿童权利方面的共同标准。研究中年轻人的经历也挑战了一些关于传统福利制度类型的假设,这些假设被一些人用来解释欧盟成员国之间支持提供的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘Iron Rod’ or ‘Colander’? Welfare Regimes in England and Italy
This chapter explores core differences in how young people experienced the asylum/immigration and social care nexus in Italy and the United Kingdom. Both systems had intrinsic advantages and inadequacies that created different kinds of opportunities for individuals at different points in their migration journeys. Of most significance is the fact that the two countries' immigration and welfare regimes differed so substantially in the first place. This finding challenges the notion of a common European asylum system, and common standards across the European Union (EU) for upholding the rights of unaccompanied minors and children more broadly. The experiences of the young people in the study also challenge several assumptions regarding the traditional welfare regime typologies that have been used by some to account for differences in support provision between EU member states.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Constructing Viable Futures as ‘Adults’ Transnational Family and Connections Identity and Belonging The Pursuit of Safety and Freedom List of Figures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1