Geoffrey Finlayson
- Published in print:
- 1994
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198227601
- eISBN:
- 9780191678752
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198227601.001.0001
- Subject:
- History, British and Irish Modern History
This book presents an analysis of social welfare in Britain from 1830 until the present day. The book explores the changing relationship between voluntarism and the state throughout this period, ...
More
This book presents an analysis of social welfare in Britain from 1830 until the present day. The book explores the changing relationship between voluntarism and the state throughout this period, unravelling the complex interactions of government, commerce, and individuals. It examines the provision of welfare and the attitudes and beliefs surrounding it, in all its many guises, from Victorian private philanthropy and informal social networks to the collectivist ideals of the Welfare State and the convictions of Thatcherite individualism. This book is, in addition, an intellectual study of the concept of citizenship over the last two centuries, tracing developing notions of the duties and obligations implicit in the idea of the citizen, as well as the rights and entitlements.Less
This book presents an analysis of social welfare in Britain from 1830 until the present day. The book explores the changing relationship between voluntarism and the state throughout this period, unravelling the complex interactions of government, commerce, and individuals. It examines the provision of welfare and the attitudes and beliefs surrounding it, in all its many guises, from Victorian private philanthropy and informal social networks to the collectivist ideals of the Welfare State and the convictions of Thatcherite individualism. This book is, in addition, an intellectual study of the concept of citizenship over the last two centuries, tracing developing notions of the duties and obligations implicit in the idea of the citizen, as well as the rights and entitlements.
Robert R. Korstad and James L. Leloudis
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- July 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780807833797
- eISBN:
- 9781469603674
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- University of North Carolina Press
- DOI:
- 10.5149/9780807895740_korstad
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
When Governor Terry Sanford established the North Carolina Fund in 1963, he saw it as a way to provide a better life for the “tens of thousands whose family income is so low that daily subsistence is ...
More
When Governor Terry Sanford established the North Carolina Fund in 1963, he saw it as a way to provide a better life for the “tens of thousands whose family income is so low that daily subsistence is always in doubt.” This book offers a lively account of this pioneering effort in America's War on Poverty. The book describes how the Fund's initial successes grew out of its reliance on private philanthropy and federal dollars and its commitment to the democratic mobilization of the poor. Both were calculated tactics designed to outflank conservative state lawmakers and entrenched local interests that nourished Jim Crow, perpetuated one-party politics, and protected an economy built on cheap labor. By late 1968, when the Fund closed its doors, a resurgent politics of race had gained the advantage, led by a Republican Party that had reorganized itself around opposition to civil rights and aid to the poor. The North Carolina Fund came up short in its battle against poverty, but its story continues to be a source of inspiration and instruction for new generations of Americans.Less
When Governor Terry Sanford established the North Carolina Fund in 1963, he saw it as a way to provide a better life for the “tens of thousands whose family income is so low that daily subsistence is always in doubt.” This book offers a lively account of this pioneering effort in America's War on Poverty. The book describes how the Fund's initial successes grew out of its reliance on private philanthropy and federal dollars and its commitment to the democratic mobilization of the poor. Both were calculated tactics designed to outflank conservative state lawmakers and entrenched local interests that nourished Jim Crow, perpetuated one-party politics, and protected an economy built on cheap labor. By late 1968, when the Fund closed its doors, a resurgent politics of race had gained the advantage, led by a Republican Party that had reorganized itself around opposition to civil rights and aid to the poor. The North Carolina Fund came up short in its battle against poverty, but its story continues to be a source of inspiration and instruction for new generations of Americans.
Ronald Labonté and Arne Ruckert
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- May 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780198835356
- eISBN:
- 9780191872952
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198835356.003.0014
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health, Epidemiology
There is no global government, but a growing myriad of global governance platforms. Some are intergovernmental (United Nations and affiliated agencies, differing ‘clubs’ of nations such as the G-7 or ...
More
There is no global government, but a growing myriad of global governance platforms. Some are intergovernmental (United Nations and affiliated agencies, differing ‘clubs’ of nations such as the G-7 or G-20); others are multi-stakeholder, drawing together governments, private sector interests, civil society organizations, philanthropists, and academics or other prominent individuals. The plurality and questionable democratic legitimacy of many of these governance platforms is problematic in terms of who has authority or influence over global norms and rules affecting the social determinants of health. Four intergovernmental organizations are profiled for the distinct roles they play in global health governance: the World Health Organization (WHO) (nominally the lead global health governance body), the World Bank (whose financial resources eclipse those of the WHO), United Nations Children’s Fund (with a particular remit to improve children’s health), and the International Labour Organization (a unique tripartite body advocating for global social protection floors).Less
There is no global government, but a growing myriad of global governance platforms. Some are intergovernmental (United Nations and affiliated agencies, differing ‘clubs’ of nations such as the G-7 or G-20); others are multi-stakeholder, drawing together governments, private sector interests, civil society organizations, philanthropists, and academics or other prominent individuals. The plurality and questionable democratic legitimacy of many of these governance platforms is problematic in terms of who has authority or influence over global norms and rules affecting the social determinants of health. Four intergovernmental organizations are profiled for the distinct roles they play in global health governance: the World Health Organization (WHO) (nominally the lead global health governance body), the World Bank (whose financial resources eclipse those of the WHO), United Nations Children’s Fund (with a particular remit to improve children’s health), and the International Labour Organization (a unique tripartite body advocating for global social protection floors).
Martha Minow
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- November 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780195171525
- eISBN:
- 9780197565643
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780195171525.003.0005
- Subject:
- Education, History of Education
Brown v. Board of Education established equality as a central commitment of American schools but launched more than a half century of debate over whether students from ...
More
Brown v. Board of Education established equality as a central commitment of American schools but launched more than a half century of debate over whether students from different racial, religious, gender, and ethnic backgrounds, and other lines of difference must be taught in the same classrooms. Brown explicitly rejected state-ordered racial segregation, yet neither law nor practice has produced a norm of racially integrated classrooms. Courts restrict modest voluntary efforts to achieve racially mixed schools. Schools in fact are now more racially segregated than they were at the height of the desegregation effort. Talk of this disappointing development dominated the events commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Brown decision. Instead of looking at the composition of schools and classrooms, policy-makers measure racial equality in American schooling by efforts to reduce racial differentials in student performance on achievement tests, and those efforts have yielded minimal success. Historians question whether the lawyers litigating Brown undermined social changes already in the works or so narrowed reforms to the focus on schools that they turned away from the pursuit of economic justice. Commentators have even questioned whether the Court’s decision itself ever produced real civil rights reform. Although Brown focused on racial equality, it also inspired social movements to pursue equal schooling beyond racial differences, and it yielded successful legal and policy changes addressing the treatment of students’ language, gender, disability, immigration status, socioeconomic status, religion, and sexual orientation. These developments are themselves still news, inadequately acknowledged and appreciated as another key legacy of Brown. Yet here, too, judges, legislators, school officials, experts, and parents disagree over whether and when equality calls for teaching together, in the same classrooms, students who are or who are perceived to be different from one another. Parents and educators have at times pushed for separate instruction and at times for instructing different students side by side. As the twenty-first century proceeds, equality in law and policy in the United States increasingly calls for mixing English-language learners with English-speaking students and disabled with non-disabled students, but students’ residential segregation and school assignments often produce schools and classrooms divided along lines of race, ethnicity, and socio-economic class.
Less
Brown v. Board of Education established equality as a central commitment of American schools but launched more than a half century of debate over whether students from different racial, religious, gender, and ethnic backgrounds, and other lines of difference must be taught in the same classrooms. Brown explicitly rejected state-ordered racial segregation, yet neither law nor practice has produced a norm of racially integrated classrooms. Courts restrict modest voluntary efforts to achieve racially mixed schools. Schools in fact are now more racially segregated than they were at the height of the desegregation effort. Talk of this disappointing development dominated the events commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Brown decision. Instead of looking at the composition of schools and classrooms, policy-makers measure racial equality in American schooling by efforts to reduce racial differentials in student performance on achievement tests, and those efforts have yielded minimal success. Historians question whether the lawyers litigating Brown undermined social changes already in the works or so narrowed reforms to the focus on schools that they turned away from the pursuit of economic justice. Commentators have even questioned whether the Court’s decision itself ever produced real civil rights reform. Although Brown focused on racial equality, it also inspired social movements to pursue equal schooling beyond racial differences, and it yielded successful legal and policy changes addressing the treatment of students’ language, gender, disability, immigration status, socioeconomic status, religion, and sexual orientation. These developments are themselves still news, inadequately acknowledged and appreciated as another key legacy of Brown. Yet here, too, judges, legislators, school officials, experts, and parents disagree over whether and when equality calls for teaching together, in the same classrooms, students who are or who are perceived to be different from one another. Parents and educators have at times pushed for separate instruction and at times for instructing different students side by side. As the twenty-first century proceeds, equality in law and policy in the United States increasingly calls for mixing English-language learners with English-speaking students and disabled with non-disabled students, but students’ residential segregation and school assignments often produce schools and classrooms divided along lines of race, ethnicity, and socio-economic class.
