中国和香港的社区关怀

L. Wong
{"title":"中国和香港的社区关怀","authors":"L. Wong","doi":"10.1080/02598272.1993.10800277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1970s and especially in the last decade, community care has become a fashionable approach to social care in many societies. This paper explores community care experiences in China and Hong Kong by examining the points of convergence and dissimilarity. A preliminary framework for cross-cultural comparison is proposed which comprises three dimensions: (1) the conceptions of community care adopted by these two societies, their evolution and their implications for social policy; (2) the origin, background, and common factors underlying the community approach; and (3) tentative achievements, including pitfalls. The writer concludes that community care in these two places face common issues and a central theme that unites them is the principle of privatisation which both embrace as a pragmatic means to meet the needs of their citizens.","PeriodicalId":333221,"journal":{"name":"The Asian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community Care in China and Hong Kong\",\"authors\":\"L. Wong\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02598272.1993.10800277\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since the 1970s and especially in the last decade, community care has become a fashionable approach to social care in many societies. This paper explores community care experiences in China and Hong Kong by examining the points of convergence and dissimilarity. A preliminary framework for cross-cultural comparison is proposed which comprises three dimensions: (1) the conceptions of community care adopted by these two societies, their evolution and their implications for social policy; (2) the origin, background, and common factors underlying the community approach; and (3) tentative achievements, including pitfalls. The writer concludes that community care in these two places face common issues and a central theme that unites them is the principle of privatisation which both embrace as a pragmatic means to meet the needs of their citizens.\",\"PeriodicalId\":333221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Asian Journal of Public Administration\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1993-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Asian Journal of Public Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02598272.1993.10800277\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Asian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02598272.1993.10800277","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

自20世纪70年代以来,特别是在过去的十年中,社区护理已经成为许多社会的一种时尚的社会护理方法。本文通过分析中港两国社区护理经验的异同点,探讨中港两国社区护理经验的异同点。本文提出了一个跨文化比较的初步框架,该框架包括三个维度:(1)这两个社会所采用的社区护理概念、它们的演变及其对社会政策的影响;(2)社区方法的起源、背景和共同因素;(3)试探性成果,包括缺陷。作者的结论是,这两个地方的社区护理面临着共同的问题,而将它们联系在一起的一个中心主题是私有化原则,这两个地方都将私有化原则作为满足其公民需求的务实手段。
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
Community Care in China and Hong Kong
Since the 1970s and especially in the last decade, community care has become a fashionable approach to social care in many societies. This paper explores community care experiences in China and Hong Kong by examining the points of convergence and dissimilarity. A preliminary framework for cross-cultural comparison is proposed which comprises three dimensions: (1) the conceptions of community care adopted by these two societies, their evolution and their implications for social policy; (2) the origin, background, and common factors underlying the community approach; and (3) tentative achievements, including pitfalls. The writer concludes that community care in these two places face common issues and a central theme that unites them is the principle of privatisation which both embrace as a pragmatic means to meet the needs of their citizens.
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
Economy and the Re-invention of the Mexican State Public Enterprises in Saudi Arabia: An Introduction to their Development, Management and Change The State as Retainer: A Basis of Public Partnerships with Civil Institutions Selling Elk Hills: The Political Economy of US Federal Divestment Emerging Patterns of Governance: Synergy, Partnerships and the Public-Private Mix
×
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