Search Results

This chapter discusses the separation and independence of the AHRB from the HEFCE. In 2001, through the aid of Bahram Bekhradnia, the AHRB gained autonomy from the HEFCE. At the beginning of the fiscal year in April 2001, the ARHB became a company limited by guarantee. In September of the same year, the organisation gained legal status as a charity, hence affording it certain tax advantages. The newly independent company and charity took on new trustees, however it retained its broad responsibilities. It also took on the responsibility for producing its own audited Statutory Accounts. At the same time, the organisation's staff formally transferred to the employment of the ARHB and in the following year additional staff were recruited. In the month of October, the organisation signed a ten-year lease contract on its new office in Whitefriars Building in Bristol. In addition, the organisation was also attaining full realization of its programmes and objectives. It formed three award schemes including the Research Leave scheme. It also created the Fellowships in the Creative and Performing Arts. In addition, the organisation also formed new funding schemes and in 2002, upon the approval of the government, the Research Council funded projects throughout the UK. In sum, as Chief Executive David Eastwood puts it, the ARHB was achieving independence and operating in ways which still mirrored those of the research councils.

This chapter examines the pension problem in France. The French pension situation follows the path of most Bismarckian pension institutions; it has long maintained a relative status quo despite several difficult reforms. Such institutions are difficult to reform because change affects the special interests of various privileged groups of workers. For reforms to pass, they must be negotiated with social partners. It remains unclear when and what type of pension funds will develop, who will be in charge of them, and how they will be invested.

In 1839, the rising tension of the controversies regarding both Church Extension and the spiritual independence of the Church, combined with the economic depression and a darkening social environment, contributed to a series of religious revivals within the Church of Scotland. Chalmers, Welsh, and Gordon walked out of the General Assembly. This chapter narrates the culmination of The Disruption of 1834. The Disruption, Chalmers maintained, was not secession. Rather it was a tragic severing of the relationship between the true Church of Scotland and the British State which had broken its pledge to preserve the Church's integrity. For him, it was the Free Church that now represented the national Establishment and Christian commonwealth. To achieve the goal of a national territorial ‘establishment’, based upon the voluntary contributions, Chalmers devised his celebrated Sustentation Fund scheme.

This chapter examines how the UK Film Council managed and organised the allocation of public funds for film production, after taking over the administration of Lottery funding from the Arts Council of England and incorporating existing film investment bodies British Screen Finance and the BFI’s Production Department. It outlines how a distinctive model was pursued through the creation of three separate streams led by industry professionals, in the form of the Development, New Cinema and Premiere Funds. Drawing on interviews with the Heads of Funds and key stakeholders from the independent film sector, it traces how the funding schemes developed over two phases while reflecting on the often difficult relationships between fund heads and independent producers in the UK.

This chapter examines various objections to a Citizen's Basic Income, such as: people should not be paid for doing nothing; immigration would go up; people would not work; we cannot afford it; it would cause a hike in public expenditure; the money could be better used on other things. Another objection is that if means-tested benefits are abolished, then we would not know to whom we should give passported benefits such as free school meals. The chapter responds to each of these objections, focusing in particular on funding schemes for the Citizen's Basic Incomes such as making changes to the existing tax and benefits structure, taxing appropriation of the commons, or by means of consumption taxes or a Financial Transaction Tax. It also considers some of the problems that a Citizen's Basic Income cannot solve, including disability, housing costs, fuel poverty and climate change.