英国全民信贷改革中的本体论矛盾

IF 2.2 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Policy Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-18 DOI:10.1080/01442872.2023.2168636
J. Newman
{"title":"英国全民信贷改革中的本体论矛盾","authors":"J. Newman","doi":"10.1080/01442872.2023.2168636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Universal Credit reforms of the 2010s were a crucial turning point in the UK’s social security system. The reforms have been widely criticized in the literature for placing too much responsibility on welfare recipients, for using cultural explanations of poverty, and for prioritizing incentive-based solutions. This article argues that these common points of criticism actually point to demonstrable contradictions in the formation of Universal Credit, contradictions that are problematic regardless of the strength of the aforementioned criticisms. The focus is on “ontological contradictions”, which derive from fundamental assumptions about how individual agents relate to their material and ideational contexts. To make this argument, a critical realist framework is developed in a dialogue with existing poststructuralist approaches.","PeriodicalId":47179,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ontological contradictions in the UK’s Universal Credit reforms\",\"authors\":\"J. Newman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01442872.2023.2168636\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The Universal Credit reforms of the 2010s were a crucial turning point in the UK’s social security system. The reforms have been widely criticized in the literature for placing too much responsibility on welfare recipients, for using cultural explanations of poverty, and for prioritizing incentive-based solutions. This article argues that these common points of criticism actually point to demonstrable contradictions in the formation of Universal Credit, contradictions that are problematic regardless of the strength of the aforementioned criticisms. The focus is on “ontological contradictions”, which derive from fundamental assumptions about how individual agents relate to their material and ideational contexts. To make this argument, a critical realist framework is developed in a dialogue with existing poststructuralist approaches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2023.2168636\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2023.2168636","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2010年代的全民信用改革是英国社会保障体系的一个关键转折点。这些改革在文献中受到了广泛的批评,因为它们把太多的责任放在了福利接受者身上,使用了对贫困的文化解释,并优先考虑了基于激励的解决方案。本文认为,这些共同的批评观点实际上指向了通用信用形成过程中显而易见的矛盾,无论上述批评的力度如何,这些矛盾都是有问题的。重点是“本体论矛盾”,这源于关于个体主体如何与其物质和概念背景相关的基本假设。为了提出这一论点,在与现有的后结构主义方法的对话中发展了一个批判现实主义框架。
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
Ontological contradictions in the UK’s Universal Credit reforms
ABSTRACT The Universal Credit reforms of the 2010s were a crucial turning point in the UK’s social security system. The reforms have been widely criticized in the literature for placing too much responsibility on welfare recipients, for using cultural explanations of poverty, and for prioritizing incentive-based solutions. This article argues that these common points of criticism actually point to demonstrable contradictions in the formation of Universal Credit, contradictions that are problematic regardless of the strength of the aforementioned criticisms. The focus is on “ontological contradictions”, which derive from fundamental assumptions about how individual agents relate to their material and ideational contexts. To make this argument, a critical realist framework is developed in a dialogue with existing poststructuralist approaches.
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
Policy Studies
Policy Studies PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: These changes at the structural level of the global system have impacted upon the work of public organizations either directly or indirectly and have broadened the field of action in policy studies. It has five main areas of intellectual interest: 1.To broaden the lens of policy analysis through the publication of research which locates policy-making within a theoretical, historical or comparative perspective. 2.To widen the field of enquiry in policy analysis through the publication of research that examines policy issues in a British, comparative, international or global context. 3.To promote constructive debate on theoretical, methodological and empirical issues in policy analysis.
期刊最新文献
Opposition windows in Delhi’s water utility privatization: going beyond the multiple streams framework The origins of social protection in healthcare: classifying healthcare systems at introduction in 165 countries Digital political campaigning: contemporary challenges and regulation Do intergovernmental interactions increase government spending? Institutional diversity and the immigrant wage gap? A comparison between the German and British experience with statutory minimum wages
×
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