建立对改善社会保障的广泛支持

Q4 Social Sciences IPPR Progressive Review Pub Date : 2023-08-30 DOI:10.1111/newe.12346
Daniel Edmiston, Kate Summers, Ben Baumberg Geiger, Robert de Vries, Lisa Scullion, David Young, Jo Ingold
{"title":"建立对改善社会保障的广泛支持","authors":"Daniel Edmiston,&nbsp;Kate Summers,&nbsp;Ben Baumberg Geiger,&nbsp;Robert de Vries,&nbsp;Lisa Scullion,&nbsp;David Young,&nbsp;Jo Ingold","doi":"10.1111/newe.12346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article, we present new evidence of broad public support for higher benefit levels in the UK, in line with a more generous Minimum Income Standard. Benchmarking entitlements against a publicly agreed Minimum Income Standard could build on this support and better engage with questions of human need in our social security system. Provision of this would contribute towards a so-called ‘civic minimum’ that serves as a transformative basis on which to redefine the social contract between citizens, the state and markets.2</p><p>Beyond the current cost-of-living crisis, welfare reforms and austerity measures introduced since 2010 mean the real terms value of non-pensioner benefits has fallen considerably. For example, the value of Child Benefit has fallen by more than a fifth (-22.7 per cent) since 2010 and Universal Credit has fallen by 15.5 per cent in value since its introduction in 2013 (See Figure 1).5 As the value of benefits has fallen, reliance on crisis support and charitable food aid has risen sharply, with food bank use being strongly linked to problems with or inadequacy of social security payments.6</p><p>As the value of benefits has fallen, the risk and depth of poverty has increased considerably.7 Progress made towards reducing child poverty has stalled significantly, and children, larger families and black and minority ethnic communities are more likely to be in deeper forms of poverty than they were a decade ago.8 In response, there have been growing concerns about the adequacy of social security payments and their capacity to mitigate against the causes and consequences of poverty.9</p><p>Proponents of a social contract rooted in ‘fair reciprocity’ argue that the “institutions governing economic life” have a duty to provide a “sufficiently generous share of the social product” to all citizens.12 They argue that if a set of “core commitments” is not fulfilled, those disadvantaged have a “proportionately reduced obligation” to perform the duties prescribed by the state.13 Such an argument reframes debates about the permissiveness of welfare, to refocus attention on the duties of economic citizenship held by the government and the legitimacy of welfare contractualism when adequate protection is missing.</p><p>What the public think benefit payments <i>are</i> is one question. What they think they <i>should be</i> is another. Historically, low benefit levels have often been politically justified as necessary to discourage ‘welfare dependency’ and encourage people to work. These sorts of arguments respond to and reinforce hackneyed caricatures of ‘skivers’ and ‘strivers’ and are often assumed to reflect the intuitions of the wider public.21 However, the level at which benefits are set or should be is often left ambiguous and rarely specified in public debates and discussion. When asked about the specific level at which benefits <i>should</i> be set, the majority of the survey respondents supported more generous payments. Specifically, most British people think that the benefits that claimants receive should be at least enough for them to afford ‘everything they really need’ (if not necessarily everything that most others in society take for granted) – that is, that benefits should meet a <i>Minimum Income Standard</i>.</p><p>Public support for a more generous and expansive social security system varies considerably according to the perceived circumstance and characteristics of claimants. For example, 73 per cent of the British public believe that in-work claimants should, at the very least, receive payment levels that mean they can afford ‘everything they really need’ (that is, a nutritious and varied diet, safe and dry accommodation, money for utility bills, clothing, childcare and transport). Support is roughly the same (72 per cent) for disabled claimants who are unable to work. However, it drops to 65 per cent for unemployed single parents and to 56 per cent for unemployed single people with no children. Nevertheless, this means that, even for the least supported group (unemployed single people with no children), most people support the idea that benefits should cover all necessities.</p><p>In terms of support for the most generous <i>Social Participation Standard</i> (benefits which would allow people to afford both necessities and things that most people take for granted), attitudes again vary depending on the type of claimant. The British public are most likely to support this standard for disabled people who are unable to work (42 per cent), followed by in-work claimants (33 per cent), unemployed single parents (22 per cent) and finally unemployed single people with no children (16 per cent).</p><p>It is also worth noting that the attitudes and policy preferences of benefit claimants themselves broadly mirror those of the general public. While benefit claimants are ever so slightly more likely to support higher levels of social security entitlement, it appears they nonetheless draw similar distinctions between the assumed needs, circumstance and ‘deservingness’ of different claimant groups. For example, support for a <i>Social Participation Standard</i> is highest for disabled people who are unable to work, with 46 per cent of benefit claimants supporting this, and lowest for unemployed single people with no children, with only 23 per cent of benefit claimants supporting this (See Figure 3).22</p><p>To build on this, further work is needed to improve public understanding of changes to the social security system that have undermined benefit adequacy and coverage over time. In particular, further evidence and strategic communication is needed around the damaging effects of benefit freezes, the five-week wait for Universal Credit, benefit deductions, the two-child limit and the benefit cap – all of which are pushing low-income claimants into more severe forms of financial hardship.24 This includes challenging public perceptions of claimant circumstance and characteristics – for example, by stressing that many low-income households in receipt of social security are already in work or very much on their way (back) towards it.</p><p>While this is not the only mechanism through which to achieve this, examples such as <i>Dibao</i> offer lessons on how to rethink our approach to the question of benefit adequacy. At present, social security payments in the UK are made without any consideration of the extent to which they alleviate poverty or facilitate social inclusion. This is despite considerable public support for a more generous benefits system. To ensure that this translates into a more meaningful and progressive policy agenda for social security, we need to make sure political debate and policy discussions surrounding welfare are strongly tethered to objective living standards. We know that there is <i>across-the-board</i> support for a more generous Minimum Income Standard in the UK social security system. So we need to benchmark benefit entitlements against it and assess the performance of welfare on this basis. Without this clear reference point, policy discussions will always drift away from the central question of ‘is this enough to live on?’. By failing to seriously engage with this question and provide a ‘civic minimum’,26 we not only render social security ineffectual at protecting people against deeper forms of poverty, we also undermine the cogency of the current social contract between citizens and the state in the UK.</p>","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12346","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Building on broad support for better social security\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Edmiston,&nbsp;Kate Summers,&nbsp;Ben Baumberg Geiger,&nbsp;Robert de Vries,&nbsp;Lisa Scullion,&nbsp;David Young,&nbsp;Jo Ingold\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/newe.12346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In this article, we present new evidence of broad public support for higher benefit levels in the UK, in line with a more generous Minimum Income Standard. Benchmarking entitlements against a publicly agreed Minimum Income Standard could build on this support and better engage with questions of human need in our social security system. Provision of this would contribute towards a so-called ‘civic minimum’ that serves as a transformative basis on which to redefine the social contract between citizens, the state and markets.2</p><p>Beyond the current cost-of-living crisis, welfare reforms and austerity measures introduced since 2010 mean the real terms value of non-pensioner benefits has fallen considerably. For example, the value of Child Benefit has fallen by more than a fifth (-22.7 per cent) since 2010 and Universal Credit has fallen by 15.5 per cent in value since its introduction in 2013 (See Figure 1).5 As the value of benefits has fallen, reliance on crisis support and charitable food aid has risen sharply, with food bank use being strongly linked to problems with or inadequacy of social security payments.6</p><p>As the value of benefits has fallen, the risk and depth of poverty has increased considerably.7 Progress made towards reducing child poverty has stalled significantly, and children, larger families and black and minority ethnic communities are more likely to be in deeper forms of poverty than they were a decade ago.8 In response, there have been growing concerns about the adequacy of social security payments and their capacity to mitigate against the causes and consequences of poverty.9</p><p>Proponents of a social contract rooted in ‘fair reciprocity’ argue that the “institutions governing economic life” have a duty to provide a “sufficiently generous share of the social product” to all citizens.12 They argue that if a set of “core commitments” is not fulfilled, those disadvantaged have a “proportionately reduced obligation” to perform the duties prescribed by the state.13 Such an argument reframes debates about the permissiveness of welfare, to refocus attention on the duties of economic citizenship held by the government and the legitimacy of welfare contractualism when adequate protection is missing.</p><p>What the public think benefit payments <i>are</i> is one question. What they think they <i>should be</i> is another. Historically, low benefit levels have often been politically justified as necessary to discourage ‘welfare dependency’ and encourage people to work. These sorts of arguments respond to and reinforce hackneyed caricatures of ‘skivers’ and ‘strivers’ and are often assumed to reflect the intuitions of the wider public.21 However, the level at which benefits are set or should be is often left ambiguous and rarely specified in public debates and discussion. When asked about the specific level at which benefits <i>should</i> be set, the majority of the survey respondents supported more generous payments. Specifically, most British people think that the benefits that claimants receive should be at least enough for them to afford ‘everything they really need’ (if not necessarily everything that most others in society take for granted) – that is, that benefits should meet a <i>Minimum Income Standard</i>.</p><p>Public support for a more generous and expansive social security system varies considerably according to the perceived circumstance and characteristics of claimants. For example, 73 per cent of the British public believe that in-work claimants should, at the very least, receive payment levels that mean they can afford ‘everything they really need’ (that is, a nutritious and varied diet, safe and dry accommodation, money for utility bills, clothing, childcare and transport). Support is roughly the same (72 per cent) for disabled claimants who are unable to work. However, it drops to 65 per cent for unemployed single parents and to 56 per cent for unemployed single people with no children. Nevertheless, this means that, even for the least supported group (unemployed single people with no children), most people support the idea that benefits should cover all necessities.</p><p>In terms of support for the most generous <i>Social Participation Standard</i> (benefits which would allow people to afford both necessities and things that most people take for granted), attitudes again vary depending on the type of claimant. The British public are most likely to support this standard for disabled people who are unable to work (42 per cent), followed by in-work claimants (33 per cent), unemployed single parents (22 per cent) and finally unemployed single people with no children (16 per cent).</p><p>It is also worth noting that the attitudes and policy preferences of benefit claimants themselves broadly mirror those of the general public. While benefit claimants are ever so slightly more likely to support higher levels of social security entitlement, it appears they nonetheless draw similar distinctions between the assumed needs, circumstance and ‘deservingness’ of different claimant groups. For example, support for a <i>Social Participation Standard</i> is highest for disabled people who are unable to work, with 46 per cent of benefit claimants supporting this, and lowest for unemployed single people with no children, with only 23 per cent of benefit claimants supporting this (See Figure 3).22</p><p>To build on this, further work is needed to improve public understanding of changes to the social security system that have undermined benefit adequacy and coverage over time. In particular, further evidence and strategic communication is needed around the damaging effects of benefit freezes, the five-week wait for Universal Credit, benefit deductions, the two-child limit and the benefit cap – all of which are pushing low-income claimants into more severe forms of financial hardship.24 This includes challenging public perceptions of claimant circumstance and characteristics – for example, by stressing that many low-income households in receipt of social security are already in work or very much on their way (back) towards it.</p><p>While this is not the only mechanism through which to achieve this, examples such as <i>Dibao</i> offer lessons on how to rethink our approach to the question of benefit adequacy. At present, social security payments in the UK are made without any consideration of the extent to which they alleviate poverty or facilitate social inclusion. This is despite considerable public support for a more generous benefits system. To ensure that this translates into a more meaningful and progressive policy agenda for social security, we need to make sure political debate and policy discussions surrounding welfare are strongly tethered to objective living standards. We know that there is <i>across-the-board</i> support for a more generous Minimum Income Standard in the UK social security system. So we need to benchmark benefit entitlements against it and assess the performance of welfare on this basis. Without this clear reference point, policy discussions will always drift away from the central question of ‘is this enough to live on?’. By failing to seriously engage with this question and provide a ‘civic minimum’,26 we not only render social security ineffectual at protecting people against deeper forms of poverty, we also undermine the cogency of the current social contract between citizens and the state in the UK.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IPPR Progressive Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12346\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IPPR Progressive Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12346\",\"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.12346","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

在这篇文章中,我们提出了新的证据,证明英国公众广泛支持更高的福利水平,符合更慷慨的最低收入标准。根据公众认可的最低收入标准对福利进行基准测试,可以在这种支持的基础上,更好地解决我们社会保障体系中人类需求的问题。这一规定将有助于实现所谓的“公民最低限度”,作为重新定义公民、国家和市场之间社会契约的变革基础。除了当前的生活成本危机之外,自2010年以来引入的福利改革和紧缩措施意味着,非养老金领取者福利的实际价值大幅下降。例如,自2010年以来,儿童福利(Child Benefit)的价值下降了逾五分之一(- 22.7%),而通用信贷(Universal Credit)自2013年推出以来,价值下降了15.5%(见图1)随着福利价值的下降,对危机支持和慈善食品援助的依赖急剧上升,食品银行的使用与社会保障支付的问题或不足密切相关。随着福利价值的下降,贫困的风险和深度大大增加了在减少儿童贫困方面取得的进展已明显停滞,儿童、大家庭以及黑人和少数民族社区比十年前更有可能陷入更深形式的贫困因此,人们越来越关注社会保障的支付是否足够,以及它们是否有能力减轻贫穷的原因和后果。基于“公平互惠”的社会契约的支持者认为,“管理经济生活的机构”有责任向所有公民提供“足够慷慨的社会产品份额”他们认为,如果一套“核心承诺”没有得到履行,那些处于不利地位的人履行国家规定的职责的“义务就会相应减少”这样的观点重新定义了关于福利放任性的辩论,重新将注意力集中在政府所承担的经济公民义务上,以及在缺乏充分保护的情况下福利契约主义的合法性。公众对福利金的看法是一个问题。他们认为自己应该成为的是另一回事。从历史上看,低福利水平经常被认为是政治上合理的,因为它是劝阻“福利依赖”和鼓励人们工作的必要条件。这类论点回应并强化了对“逃工”和“奋斗者”的陈腐讽刺,通常被认为反映了广大公众的直觉但是,在公开辩论和讨论中,确定或应该确定的福利水平往往含糊不清,很少具体说明。当被问及福利应该设定的具体水平时,大多数受访者支持更慷慨的支付。具体来说,大多数英国人认为领取救济金的人应该至少能负担得起“他们真正需要的一切”(如果不一定是社会上大多数人认为理所当然的一切),也就是说,救济金应该符合最低收入标准。公众对更慷慨和更广泛的社会保障制度的支持根据所认识的情况和索赔人的特点而有很大的不同。例如,73%的英国公众认为,在工作中的索赔者至少应该获得能够负担得起“他们真正需要的一切”(即营养丰富的饮食、安全干燥的住宿、水电费、衣服、儿童保育和交通费用)的支付水平。对无法工作的残疾索赔人的支持大致相同(72%)。然而,对于失业的单身父母来说,这一比例降至65%,对于没有孩子的单身失业人士来说,这一比例降至56%。然而,这意味着,即使是最不受支持的群体(没有孩子的失业单身人士),大多数人也支持福利应该涵盖所有必需品的想法。在支持最慷慨的社会参与标准(使人们能够负担得起必需品和大多数人认为理所当然的东西的福利)方面,态度再次因索赔人的类型而异。英国公众最有可能支持这一标准的是无法工作的残疾人(42%),其次是在职索赔者(33%),失业单亲(22%),最后是没有孩子的失业单身人士(16%)。还值得注意的是,领取福利者本身的态度和政策偏好大体上反映了一般公众的态度和政策偏好。 虽然福利申领人更倾向于支持更高水平的社会保障权利,但似乎他们在不同申领群体的假定需求、环境和“应得性”之间划出了类似的区别。例如,对社会参与标准的支持在无法工作的残疾人中是最高的,有46%的福利申领人支持这一标准,而在没有孩子的失业单身人士中是最低的,只有23%的福利申领人支持这一标准(见图3)。22在此基础上,需要进一步的工作来提高公众对社会保障体系变化的理解,这些变化随着时间的推移已经破坏了福利的充足性和覆盖面。特别是,需要进一步的证据和战略沟通,以说明冻结福利、等待五周领取普遍津贴、扣减福利、二子女限制和福利上限的破坏性影响,所有这些都使低收入领取者陷入更严重的财政困难这包括挑战公众对索赔人情况和特征的看法——例如,通过强调许多领取社会保障的低收入家庭已经在工作或正在(重返)工作的路上。虽然这不是实现这一目标的唯一机制,但低保等例子为我们如何重新思考福利充足性问题提供了经验。目前,在英国,社会保障的支付没有考虑到它们在多大程度上减轻了贫困或促进了社会包容。尽管相当多的公众支持更慷慨的福利制度。为了确保这转化为一个更有意义和进步的社会保障政策议程,我们需要确保围绕福利的政治辩论和政策讨论与客观生活水平紧密联系在一起。我们知道,在英国社会保障体系中,普遍支持更慷慨的最低收入标准。因此,我们需要以此为基准来衡量福利权利,并在此基础上评估福利的表现。如果没有这个明确的参考点,政策讨论将永远偏离“这些钱够生活吗?”这个核心问题。由于没有认真对待这个问题并提供“公民最低限度”,26我们不仅使社会保障在保护人们免受更深形式的贫困方面无效,而且还破坏了英国公民与国家之间当前社会契约的效力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Building on broad support for better social security

In this article, we present new evidence of broad public support for higher benefit levels in the UK, in line with a more generous Minimum Income Standard. Benchmarking entitlements against a publicly agreed Minimum Income Standard could build on this support and better engage with questions of human need in our social security system. Provision of this would contribute towards a so-called ‘civic minimum’ that serves as a transformative basis on which to redefine the social contract between citizens, the state and markets.2

Beyond the current cost-of-living crisis, welfare reforms and austerity measures introduced since 2010 mean the real terms value of non-pensioner benefits has fallen considerably. For example, the value of Child Benefit has fallen by more than a fifth (-22.7 per cent) since 2010 and Universal Credit has fallen by 15.5 per cent in value since its introduction in 2013 (See Figure 1).5 As the value of benefits has fallen, reliance on crisis support and charitable food aid has risen sharply, with food bank use being strongly linked to problems with or inadequacy of social security payments.6

As the value of benefits has fallen, the risk and depth of poverty has increased considerably.7 Progress made towards reducing child poverty has stalled significantly, and children, larger families and black and minority ethnic communities are more likely to be in deeper forms of poverty than they were a decade ago.8 In response, there have been growing concerns about the adequacy of social security payments and their capacity to mitigate against the causes and consequences of poverty.9

Proponents of a social contract rooted in ‘fair reciprocity’ argue that the “institutions governing economic life” have a duty to provide a “sufficiently generous share of the social product” to all citizens.12 They argue that if a set of “core commitments” is not fulfilled, those disadvantaged have a “proportionately reduced obligation” to perform the duties prescribed by the state.13 Such an argument reframes debates about the permissiveness of welfare, to refocus attention on the duties of economic citizenship held by the government and the legitimacy of welfare contractualism when adequate protection is missing.

What the public think benefit payments are is one question. What they think they should be is another. Historically, low benefit levels have often been politically justified as necessary to discourage ‘welfare dependency’ and encourage people to work. These sorts of arguments respond to and reinforce hackneyed caricatures of ‘skivers’ and ‘strivers’ and are often assumed to reflect the intuitions of the wider public.21 However, the level at which benefits are set or should be is often left ambiguous and rarely specified in public debates and discussion. When asked about the specific level at which benefits should be set, the majority of the survey respondents supported more generous payments. Specifically, most British people think that the benefits that claimants receive should be at least enough for them to afford ‘everything they really need’ (if not necessarily everything that most others in society take for granted) – that is, that benefits should meet a Minimum Income Standard.

Public support for a more generous and expansive social security system varies considerably according to the perceived circumstance and characteristics of claimants. For example, 73 per cent of the British public believe that in-work claimants should, at the very least, receive payment levels that mean they can afford ‘everything they really need’ (that is, a nutritious and varied diet, safe and dry accommodation, money for utility bills, clothing, childcare and transport). Support is roughly the same (72 per cent) for disabled claimants who are unable to work. However, it drops to 65 per cent for unemployed single parents and to 56 per cent for unemployed single people with no children. Nevertheless, this means that, even for the least supported group (unemployed single people with no children), most people support the idea that benefits should cover all necessities.

In terms of support for the most generous Social Participation Standard (benefits which would allow people to afford both necessities and things that most people take for granted), attitudes again vary depending on the type of claimant. The British public are most likely to support this standard for disabled people who are unable to work (42 per cent), followed by in-work claimants (33 per cent), unemployed single parents (22 per cent) and finally unemployed single people with no children (16 per cent).

It is also worth noting that the attitudes and policy preferences of benefit claimants themselves broadly mirror those of the general public. While benefit claimants are ever so slightly more likely to support higher levels of social security entitlement, it appears they nonetheless draw similar distinctions between the assumed needs, circumstance and ‘deservingness’ of different claimant groups. For example, support for a Social Participation Standard is highest for disabled people who are unable to work, with 46 per cent of benefit claimants supporting this, and lowest for unemployed single people with no children, with only 23 per cent of benefit claimants supporting this (See Figure 3).22

To build on this, further work is needed to improve public understanding of changes to the social security system that have undermined benefit adequacy and coverage over time. In particular, further evidence and strategic communication is needed around the damaging effects of benefit freezes, the five-week wait for Universal Credit, benefit deductions, the two-child limit and the benefit cap – all of which are pushing low-income claimants into more severe forms of financial hardship.24 This includes challenging public perceptions of claimant circumstance and characteristics – for example, by stressing that many low-income households in receipt of social security are already in work or very much on their way (back) towards it.

While this is not the only mechanism through which to achieve this, examples such as Dibao offer lessons on how to rethink our approach to the question of benefit adequacy. At present, social security payments in the UK are made without any consideration of the extent to which they alleviate poverty or facilitate social inclusion. This is despite considerable public support for a more generous benefits system. To ensure that this translates into a more meaningful and progressive policy agenda for social security, we need to make sure political debate and policy discussions surrounding welfare are strongly tethered to objective living standards. We know that there is across-the-board support for a more generous Minimum Income Standard in the UK social security system. So we need to benchmark benefit entitlements against it and assess the performance of welfare on this basis. Without this clear reference point, policy discussions will always drift away from the central question of ‘is this enough to live on?’. By failing to seriously engage with this question and provide a ‘civic minimum’,26 we not only render social security ineffectual at protecting people against deeper forms of poverty, we also undermine the cogency of the current social contract between citizens and the state in the UK.

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