重新考虑工作

Q4 Social Sciences IPPR Progressive Review Pub Date : 2023-08-10 DOI:10.1111/newe.12351
Heejung Chung
{"title":"重新考虑工作","authors":"Heejung Chung","doi":"10.1111/newe.12351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Work in the UK is broken. We work too hard, too long, are not getting paid enough and are not productive enough.1 What is more, our labour market is largely exclusionary. The work devotion we are asked to show is not compatible with other life commitments, resulting in the exclusion of large pockets of society. It also requires untenable levels of work commitment and overwork, especially from those whose work capacities are already questioned – namely, marginalised workers such as minority ethnic workers. The current way of thinking about work is not helping us as workers, us as a society and also our climate. It doesn't even make economic sense as it doesn't make the most of human contributions, especially considering the challenges we face in the future of work.</p><p>One of the main problems with work culture is that of the ‘ideal worker’,2 namely, that you need to prioritise work above all else in your life, work very long hours to show dedication and commitment to work and be productive. “Nobody ever changed the world on 40 hours a week”, to quote Elon Musk.3 The chief executive of Goldman Sachs expects his junior analysts to work 100 hours a week to provide value for their clients.4 Alongside the rise of digital technology, and ironically with the rise of flexible working, workers are expected to work all the time and everywhere. You have to be “always on”,5 to the point where it feels like your work now has the prerogative to demand all your waking hours and possibly your unconscious hours when we consider how much we think about work.</p><p>Not only is working such long hours detrimental to workers’ and their families’ wellbeing – for example, by not allowing parents to spend time with their family – it also largely excludes workers with any responsibilities outside of work. This includes caring for children, family or friends and self-care – namely, anyone with a disability or long-term illness, and those with responsibilities to their community, friends, pets or any other aspect of life that can collide with the long-hours work culture. Any indication that you may have responsibilities outside of work is likely to result in doubt of your work commitment and productivity, regardless of what you actually produce.6 This long-hours working can be especially detrimental for marginalised workers whose work capacity is already questioned – such as mothers, disabled people, minority ethnic workers and LGBT+ workers – as many already overwork and go above and beyond to prove their worth. In the UK, 88 per cent of workers experienced burnout recently, costing the UK £28 billion yearly,7 with burnout and other mental health problems being especially high for marginalised workers. What is worse, we are not burning out to enhance the world or bring forth a new future for humanity. Two out of five Britons feel that their work is not making any meaningful contribution to the world8 and 69 per cent report that they are burning out precisely because their work lacks any real purpose. At the same time, many of our meaningless jobs are actually helping to accelerate the global climate crisis, and other social costs that we as a society have to bear indirectly.9</p><p>Despite these problems, what homeworking has shifted is the notion of productivity. Namely, that if you trust workers and allow them more autonomy over their work, they are likely to be more productive. Homeworking has also changed the notion of the worker somewhat to someone who has an identity and responsibilities outside of work – especially as during online conference calls we can see the worker outside of the office and in their home space.</p><p>Another interesting new development is the rise in the popularity of the four-day week. This movement suggests that the full-time norm be changed to a 32-hour four-day week. It argues that long hours worked by workers can be largely performative,14 meaning that it is done to show others such as their colleagues and managers that they are committed and productive, rather than long-hours actually providing value to the company. By providing more rest time, a shorter working week allows workers to concentrate better during work hours, making them more productive, and enabling companies to save on costs. A four-day week also removes any redundant work – such as unnecessary meetings and paperwork – drawing from the expertise and knowledge teams have built rather than the reduction of work tasks being decided by the managers alone.</p><p>However, even in low-wage sectors, the investment will eventually pay off at the company level due to improved work retention and recruitment and a reduction in absenteeism and sickness, and at the societal level by getting more people in employment paying taxes, reducing the costs of health problems and burnout, and bringing benefits to families.18 Taking this into account, sectors like health and social care could benefit from more state intervention to incentivise workers who have left the sector due to bad working conditions and burnout to come back with the introduction of the new system. Finally, although the four-day week is a move towards protecting workers’ right to time and recalibrating the value of labour at the societal level by appreciating the need for workers to spend time doing work outside of paid work, perhaps it is not enough. The next section thus outlines additional issues we need to consider when we think about the new social contract of work.</p><p>First, we need to reconsider the type of jobs we value. The monetary value that work generates does not represent the true value of the labour put in nor the benefit it reaps. For example, social care and childcare are incredibly valuable work for the wellbeing of the person receiving the care and for the peace of mind it can provide for the loved ones of that person; yet it is generally paid very little. This is despite the global care crisis – namely, the shortages of care workers across the world. The value of care work is so undervalued in monetary terms because it is shaped by socially normative views – the main one being the unpaid care work of women. Care work has been largely carried out by women for free across history. In this patriarchal society, care work is regarded as feminine labour that does not need to be remunerated as women are not regarded as (the main) breadwinners for the family.19</p><p>The same kind of logic could be used for other types of work with regards to monetary values and social costs – for example, environmentally friendly work that may not result in large profit margins and may cost more in terms of monetary value but can be hugely beneficial in reducing environmental costs and with it social costs.</p><p>Given where we are and in light of the global challenges we have in relation to work, we need to radically reconsider our social contract and notion of work. Work should be a right for members of society, to develop our world. Also, we need to reassess work, not only focusing on its monetary value, but also examining the social value it creates with regards to wellbeing, as well as how it can reduce potential social costs, especially in relation to equality, cohesion and sustainability. In this sense, we need to eradicate the ideal-worker norm based on long hours. This isn't something that would go against value creation, but rather enable us to better use human labour, leading to real progress and value for society. This would also make monetary sense when we consider the longer-term consequences for wider society. Work is broken at the moment, but we can make things better.</p>","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12351","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconsidering work\",\"authors\":\"Heejung Chung\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/newe.12351\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Work in the UK is broken. We work too hard, too long, are not getting paid enough and are not productive enough.1 What is more, our labour market is largely exclusionary. The work devotion we are asked to show is not compatible with other life commitments, resulting in the exclusion of large pockets of society. It also requires untenable levels of work commitment and overwork, especially from those whose work capacities are already questioned – namely, marginalised workers such as minority ethnic workers. The current way of thinking about work is not helping us as workers, us as a society and also our climate. It doesn't even make economic sense as it doesn't make the most of human contributions, especially considering the challenges we face in the future of work.</p><p>One of the main problems with work culture is that of the ‘ideal worker’,2 namely, that you need to prioritise work above all else in your life, work very long hours to show dedication and commitment to work and be productive. “Nobody ever changed the world on 40 hours a week”, to quote Elon Musk.3 The chief executive of Goldman Sachs expects his junior analysts to work 100 hours a week to provide value for their clients.4 Alongside the rise of digital technology, and ironically with the rise of flexible working, workers are expected to work all the time and everywhere. You have to be “always on”,5 to the point where it feels like your work now has the prerogative to demand all your waking hours and possibly your unconscious hours when we consider how much we think about work.</p><p>Not only is working such long hours detrimental to workers’ and their families’ wellbeing – for example, by not allowing parents to spend time with their family – it also largely excludes workers with any responsibilities outside of work. This includes caring for children, family or friends and self-care – namely, anyone with a disability or long-term illness, and those with responsibilities to their community, friends, pets or any other aspect of life that can collide with the long-hours work culture. Any indication that you may have responsibilities outside of work is likely to result in doubt of your work commitment and productivity, regardless of what you actually produce.6 This long-hours working can be especially detrimental for marginalised workers whose work capacity is already questioned – such as mothers, disabled people, minority ethnic workers and LGBT+ workers – as many already overwork and go above and beyond to prove their worth. In the UK, 88 per cent of workers experienced burnout recently, costing the UK £28 billion yearly,7 with burnout and other mental health problems being especially high for marginalised workers. What is worse, we are not burning out to enhance the world or bring forth a new future for humanity. Two out of five Britons feel that their work is not making any meaningful contribution to the world8 and 69 per cent report that they are burning out precisely because their work lacks any real purpose. At the same time, many of our meaningless jobs are actually helping to accelerate the global climate crisis, and other social costs that we as a society have to bear indirectly.9</p><p>Despite these problems, what homeworking has shifted is the notion of productivity. Namely, that if you trust workers and allow them more autonomy over their work, they are likely to be more productive. Homeworking has also changed the notion of the worker somewhat to someone who has an identity and responsibilities outside of work – especially as during online conference calls we can see the worker outside of the office and in their home space.</p><p>Another interesting new development is the rise in the popularity of the four-day week. This movement suggests that the full-time norm be changed to a 32-hour four-day week. It argues that long hours worked by workers can be largely performative,14 meaning that it is done to show others such as their colleagues and managers that they are committed and productive, rather than long-hours actually providing value to the company. By providing more rest time, a shorter working week allows workers to concentrate better during work hours, making them more productive, and enabling companies to save on costs. A four-day week also removes any redundant work – such as unnecessary meetings and paperwork – drawing from the expertise and knowledge teams have built rather than the reduction of work tasks being decided by the managers alone.</p><p>However, even in low-wage sectors, the investment will eventually pay off at the company level due to improved work retention and recruitment and a reduction in absenteeism and sickness, and at the societal level by getting more people in employment paying taxes, reducing the costs of health problems and burnout, and bringing benefits to families.18 Taking this into account, sectors like health and social care could benefit from more state intervention to incentivise workers who have left the sector due to bad working conditions and burnout to come back with the introduction of the new system. Finally, although the four-day week is a move towards protecting workers’ right to time and recalibrating the value of labour at the societal level by appreciating the need for workers to spend time doing work outside of paid work, perhaps it is not enough. The next section thus outlines additional issues we need to consider when we think about the new social contract of work.</p><p>First, we need to reconsider the type of jobs we value. The monetary value that work generates does not represent the true value of the labour put in nor the benefit it reaps. For example, social care and childcare are incredibly valuable work for the wellbeing of the person receiving the care and for the peace of mind it can provide for the loved ones of that person; yet it is generally paid very little. This is despite the global care crisis – namely, the shortages of care workers across the world. The value of care work is so undervalued in monetary terms because it is shaped by socially normative views – the main one being the unpaid care work of women. Care work has been largely carried out by women for free across history. In this patriarchal society, care work is regarded as feminine labour that does not need to be remunerated as women are not regarded as (the main) breadwinners for the family.19</p><p>The same kind of logic could be used for other types of work with regards to monetary values and social costs – for example, environmentally friendly work that may not result in large profit margins and may cost more in terms of monetary value but can be hugely beneficial in reducing environmental costs and with it social costs.</p><p>Given where we are and in light of the global challenges we have in relation to work, we need to radically reconsider our social contract and notion of work. Work should be a right for members of society, to develop our world. Also, we need to reassess work, not only focusing on its monetary value, but also examining the social value it creates with regards to wellbeing, as well as how it can reduce potential social costs, especially in relation to equality, cohesion and sustainability. In this sense, we need to eradicate the ideal-worker norm based on long hours. This isn't something that would go against value creation, but rather enable us to better use human labour, leading to real progress and value for society. This would also make monetary sense when we consider the longer-term consequences for wider society. Work is broken at the moment, but we can make things better.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IPPR Progressive Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12351\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IPPR Progressive Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12351\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IPPR Progressive Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12351","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英国的工作是支离破碎的。我们工作太辛苦,时间太长,却得不到足够的报酬,效率也不够高更重要的是,我们的劳动力市场在很大程度上是排外的。我们被要求表现出的工作奉献精神与其他生活承诺是不相容的,导致社会上的大部分人被排斥在外。它还需要无法维持的工作承诺和过度工作,特别是那些工作能力已经受到质疑的人-即少数民族工人等边缘化工人。目前对工作的思考方式无助于我们作为工人,我们作为一个社会,也无助于我们的气候。它甚至没有经济意义,因为它没有充分利用人类的贡献,特别是考虑到我们在未来工作中面临的挑战。工作文化的一个主要问题是“理想员工”,也就是说,你需要把工作放在生活中的其他一切之上,工作很长时间来表现出对工作的奉献和承诺,并提高工作效率。“没有人能靠每周工作40小时来改变世界,”埃隆·马斯克(Elon musk)说。高盛(Goldman Sachs)首席执行官希望他的初级分析师每周工作100小时,为客户提供价值随着数字技术的兴起,具有讽刺意味的是,随着弹性工作制的兴起,工人们被期望随时随地工作。你必须“时刻处于工作状态”,以至于现在你觉得你的工作占据了你醒着的所有时间,当我们考虑到我们对工作有多少想法时,可能还会占用你的无意识时间。如此长时间的工作不仅对员工及其家人的健康有害——例如,不允许父母与家人共度时光——而且在很大程度上也将那些在工作之外负有任何责任的员工排除在外。这包括照顾孩子、家人或朋友,以及自我照顾——也就是说,任何有残疾或长期患病的人,以及那些对社区、朋友、宠物或任何其他可能与长时间工作文化相冲突的生活方面负有责任的人。任何暗示你在工作之外可能有责任的迹象都可能导致对你的工作承诺和效率的怀疑,不管你实际生产了什么这种长时间的工作对那些工作能力已经受到质疑的边缘化工人——比如母亲、残疾人、少数民族工人和LGBT+工人——尤其有害,因为许多人已经超负荷工作,并且为了证明自己的价值而付出了更多。在英国,88%的员工最近经历了职业倦怠,每年给英国造成280亿英镑的损失,7边缘化员工的职业倦怠和其他心理健康问题尤其严重。更糟糕的是,我们并没有竭尽全力改善世界,也没有为人类创造新的未来。五分之二的英国人认为他们的工作没有对世界做出任何有意义的贡献,69%的人表示,他们感到精疲力竭正是因为他们的工作缺乏任何真正的目的。与此同时,我们的许多无意义的工作实际上正在加速全球气候危机,以及我们作为一个社会不得不间接承担的其他社会成本。尽管存在这些问题,但在家办公改变的是对生产力的观念。也就是说,如果你信任员工,并允许他们在工作上有更多的自主权,他们可能会更有效率。在家办公也在一定程度上改变了人们对员工的观念,让他们在工作之外有了身份和责任——尤其是在在线电话会议期间,我们可以看到员工在办公室以外的地方,在他们的家里。另一个有趣的新发展是四天工作制越来越受欢迎。这一运动建议将全职标准改为每周四天32小时。该公司认为,员工的长时间工作在很大程度上可能是表现性的,14这意味着,长时间工作是为了向同事和经理等其他人展示他们的敬业精神和生产力,而不是真正为公司提供价值。通过提供更多的休息时间,更短的工作周可以让工人在工作时间更好地集中精力,提高他们的工作效率,并使公司节省成本。四天工作制还消除了任何多余的工作——比如不必要的会议和文书工作——这些工作是从团队积累的专业知识和知识中提取出来的,而不是减少由经理单独决定的工作任务。然而,即使在低工资部门,投资最终也会在公司一级获得回报,因为工作保留和招聘得到改善,缺勤和疾病减少;在社会一级,通过让更多的就业人员纳税,减少健康问题和倦怠的成本,并为家庭带来福利。 考虑到这一点,卫生和社会保健等部门可以从更多的国家干预中受益,以激励那些因工作条件差和倦怠而离开该部门的工人随着新制度的引入而回来。最后,尽管四天工作周是为了保护工人的时间权,并通过认识到工人花时间从事有偿工作之外的工作的必要性,在社会层面重新调整劳动价值,但这可能还不够。因此,下一节概述了我们在考虑新的社会工作契约时需要考虑的其他问题。首先,我们需要重新考虑我们看重的工作类型。劳动产生的货币价值并不能代表投入劳动的真正价值,也不能代表劳动所获得的利益。例如,社会关怀和儿童保育是非常有价值的工作,它可以为接受照顾的人提供福祉,也可以为该人的亲人提供内心的平静;然而,它通常得到的报酬很少。这是在全球护理危机——即世界各地护理工作者短缺的情况下取得的。护理工作的价值在货币方面被如此低估,因为它是由社会规范观点塑造的-主要是妇女的无偿护理工作。历史上,护理工作主要由女性免费完成。在这个父权社会中,护理工作被视为女性的劳动,不需要得到报酬,因为妇女不被视为家庭的(主要)养家糊口者。19 .在货币价值和社会成本方面,同样的逻辑也可用于其他类型的工作,例如,环境友好型工作可能不会产生很大的利润空间,在货币价值方面可能花费更多,但在减少环境成本和社会成本方面可能非常有益。鉴于我们所处的位置以及我们在工作方面面临的全球性挑战,我们需要从根本上重新考虑我们的社会契约和工作观念。工作应该是社会成员发展世界的一项权利。此外,我们需要重新评估工作,不仅要关注它的货币价值,还要研究它在福利方面创造的社会价值,以及它如何降低潜在的社会成本,特别是在平等、凝聚力和可持续性方面。从这个意义上说,我们需要根除基于长时间工作的理想工作者规范。这并不会阻碍价值创造,而是使我们能够更好地利用人力,从而为社会带来真正的进步和价值。当我们考虑到对更广泛社会的长期影响时,这在货币方面也有意义。工作目前是中断的,但我们可以做得更好。
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
Reconsidering work

Work in the UK is broken. We work too hard, too long, are not getting paid enough and are not productive enough.1 What is more, our labour market is largely exclusionary. The work devotion we are asked to show is not compatible with other life commitments, resulting in the exclusion of large pockets of society. It also requires untenable levels of work commitment and overwork, especially from those whose work capacities are already questioned – namely, marginalised workers such as minority ethnic workers. The current way of thinking about work is not helping us as workers, us as a society and also our climate. It doesn't even make economic sense as it doesn't make the most of human contributions, especially considering the challenges we face in the future of work.

One of the main problems with work culture is that of the ‘ideal worker’,2 namely, that you need to prioritise work above all else in your life, work very long hours to show dedication and commitment to work and be productive. “Nobody ever changed the world on 40 hours a week”, to quote Elon Musk.3 The chief executive of Goldman Sachs expects his junior analysts to work 100 hours a week to provide value for their clients.4 Alongside the rise of digital technology, and ironically with the rise of flexible working, workers are expected to work all the time and everywhere. You have to be “always on”,5 to the point where it feels like your work now has the prerogative to demand all your waking hours and possibly your unconscious hours when we consider how much we think about work.

Not only is working such long hours detrimental to workers’ and their families’ wellbeing – for example, by not allowing parents to spend time with their family – it also largely excludes workers with any responsibilities outside of work. This includes caring for children, family or friends and self-care – namely, anyone with a disability or long-term illness, and those with responsibilities to their community, friends, pets or any other aspect of life that can collide with the long-hours work culture. Any indication that you may have responsibilities outside of work is likely to result in doubt of your work commitment and productivity, regardless of what you actually produce.6 This long-hours working can be especially detrimental for marginalised workers whose work capacity is already questioned – such as mothers, disabled people, minority ethnic workers and LGBT+ workers – as many already overwork and go above and beyond to prove their worth. In the UK, 88 per cent of workers experienced burnout recently, costing the UK £28 billion yearly,7 with burnout and other mental health problems being especially high for marginalised workers. What is worse, we are not burning out to enhance the world or bring forth a new future for humanity. Two out of five Britons feel that their work is not making any meaningful contribution to the world8 and 69 per cent report that they are burning out precisely because their work lacks any real purpose. At the same time, many of our meaningless jobs are actually helping to accelerate the global climate crisis, and other social costs that we as a society have to bear indirectly.9

Despite these problems, what homeworking has shifted is the notion of productivity. Namely, that if you trust workers and allow them more autonomy over their work, they are likely to be more productive. Homeworking has also changed the notion of the worker somewhat to someone who has an identity and responsibilities outside of work – especially as during online conference calls we can see the worker outside of the office and in their home space.

Another interesting new development is the rise in the popularity of the four-day week. This movement suggests that the full-time norm be changed to a 32-hour four-day week. It argues that long hours worked by workers can be largely performative,14 meaning that it is done to show others such as their colleagues and managers that they are committed and productive, rather than long-hours actually providing value to the company. By providing more rest time, a shorter working week allows workers to concentrate better during work hours, making them more productive, and enabling companies to save on costs. A four-day week also removes any redundant work – such as unnecessary meetings and paperwork – drawing from the expertise and knowledge teams have built rather than the reduction of work tasks being decided by the managers alone.

However, even in low-wage sectors, the investment will eventually pay off at the company level due to improved work retention and recruitment and a reduction in absenteeism and sickness, and at the societal level by getting more people in employment paying taxes, reducing the costs of health problems and burnout, and bringing benefits to families.18 Taking this into account, sectors like health and social care could benefit from more state intervention to incentivise workers who have left the sector due to bad working conditions and burnout to come back with the introduction of the new system. Finally, although the four-day week is a move towards protecting workers’ right to time and recalibrating the value of labour at the societal level by appreciating the need for workers to spend time doing work outside of paid work, perhaps it is not enough. The next section thus outlines additional issues we need to consider when we think about the new social contract of work.

First, we need to reconsider the type of jobs we value. The monetary value that work generates does not represent the true value of the labour put in nor the benefit it reaps. For example, social care and childcare are incredibly valuable work for the wellbeing of the person receiving the care and for the peace of mind it can provide for the loved ones of that person; yet it is generally paid very little. This is despite the global care crisis – namely, the shortages of care workers across the world. The value of care work is so undervalued in monetary terms because it is shaped by socially normative views – the main one being the unpaid care work of women. Care work has been largely carried out by women for free across history. In this patriarchal society, care work is regarded as feminine labour that does not need to be remunerated as women are not regarded as (the main) breadwinners for the family.19

The same kind of logic could be used for other types of work with regards to monetary values and social costs – for example, environmentally friendly work that may not result in large profit margins and may cost more in terms of monetary value but can be hugely beneficial in reducing environmental costs and with it social costs.

Given where we are and in light of the global challenges we have in relation to work, we need to radically reconsider our social contract and notion of work. Work should be a right for members of society, to develop our world. Also, we need to reassess work, not only focusing on its monetary value, but also examining the social value it creates with regards to wellbeing, as well as how it can reduce potential social costs, especially in relation to equality, cohesion and sustainability. In this sense, we need to eradicate the ideal-worker norm based on long hours. This isn't something that would go against value creation, but rather enable us to better use human labour, leading to real progress and value for society. This would also make monetary sense when we consider the longer-term consequences for wider society. Work is broken at the moment, but we can make things better.

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
IPPR Progressive Review
IPPR Progressive Review Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: The permafrost of no alternatives has cracked; the horizon of political possibilities is expanding. IPPR Progressive Review is a pluralistic space to debate where next for progressives, examine the opportunities and challenges confronting us and ask the big questions facing our politics: transforming a failed economic model, renewing a frayed social contract, building a new relationship with Europe. Publishing the best writing in economics, politics and culture, IPPR Progressive Review explores how we can best build a more equal, humane and prosperous society.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information How to maintain public support and act quickly on climate policy Beyond ‘AI boosterism’ Editorial Are demographics destiny?
×
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