EUI Working Paper: SPS, Volumes 4-10European University Institute, 1993 - Europe |
From inside the book
Results 1-3 of 3
Page 15
For example , California provided welfare recipients in 1990 with benefits nearly six times as large as those provided by Alabama . The maximum welfare benefit paid to a California family of three was $ 694 a month , compared with $ 118 ...
For example , California provided welfare recipients in 1990 with benefits nearly six times as large as those provided by Alabama . The maximum welfare benefit paid to a California family of three was $ 694 a month , compared with $ 118 ...
Page 16
Instead , the statistics show that benefits varied as much in 1990 as they did in 1940. Such disparities give rise to the phenomenon of " welfare magnets " states with comparatively high benefits that attract the poor .
Instead , the statistics show that benefits varied as much in 1990 as they did in 1940. Such disparities give rise to the phenomenon of " welfare magnets " states with comparatively high benefits that attract the poor .
Page 22
Even in the United States , where the federal government pays three - fourths of the cost of welfare assistance , the states set the benefit levels . States differ in their assessment of what a family needs to meet a reasonable standard ...
Even in the United States , where the federal government pays three - fourths of the cost of welfare assistance , the states set the benefit levels . States differ in their assessment of what a family needs to meet a reasonable standard ...
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Common terms and phrases
activities Agency areas argument Author benefits central Changes Commission Common Agricultural Policy common market Community competition completion concerning considered consumer protection costs Council countries dimension directives discussed distinct distribution economic Educational effects efficiency elements environment environmental environmental protection equal EUI Working Paper Europe European European Social example externalities fact Federal field final function Fund Germany Giandomenico MAJONE giving health and safety historical implementation important improving increasing individuals Industries innovation institutions integration interest internal introduced issues Italy justified legislation limited majority market failure meaning measures meet Member migrant workers occupational health particular policymaking political possible present principle problems programme proposal qualified reasons recent redistribution regime regions regulatory requirements result significant social policy social regulation social security solutions space standards Title traditional Treaty values welfare workers
Bibliographic information
| Title | EUI Working Paper: SPS, Volumes 4-10 EUI Working Paper: SPS, European University Institute. Department of Political and Social Sciences |
| Contributor | European University Institute. Department of Political and Social Sciences |
| Publisher | European University Institute, 1993 |
| Export Citation | BiBTeX EndNote RefMan |