Public service employment : a review of programs in selected OECD countries and transition economies

This paper examines one type of program that is used by many OECD and CEEC countries (Central and Eastern European countries) to ease the pain of structural adjustment and create jobs, namely Public Service Employment (PSE). Such programs are characterized by the employment of unemployed persons, financed by the government, to provide services and/or support infrastructure development (public works). Many of those in the"non-interventionist"camp view these programs as a waste of public funds that could be used in more productive economic investments. Some of those in the"interventionist camp"also view the programs in a similar manner and feel that, while someintervention is needed, PSE programs are not an appropriate tool. However, a number of OECD and CEEC countries are implementing such programs. This report reviews and summarizes the experiences of several countries-Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, Poland, and Hungary. While not a representative sample, some of these countries heavily emphasized the use of such programs. The American program, discontinued over 15 years ago, remains relevant because this is where some of the best research has been conducted. Hungary and Poland are included because of their obvious relevance to the situation of countries in transition.Environmental Economics&Policies,ICT Policy and Strategies,Poverty Impact Evaluation,Banks&Banking Reform,Labor Standards

Matters of Conscience: Lessons for Same-Sex Marriage from the Healthcase Context

None available

Insubstantial Burdens: The Case for Government Employee Exemptions to Same-Sex Marriage Laws

The case for accommodating religious objectors to same-sex marriage has met significant resistance on a number of fronts. Some believe that religious exemptions permit objectors to dodge legal duties to serve same-sex couples that would otherwise apply. Critics charge that, if extended to public employees, such exemptions would burden the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Others argue that exemptions coddle wrong-headed people who really do not have a legitimate reason for objecting and who, therefore, should not be legally excused. A review of the nearly half-dozen new same-sex marriage laws enacted in the past year suggests that the least sympathetic of these potential objectors is the government employee whose labor is supported by taxpayers, heterosexual and homosexual alike. The states that have embraced meaningful religious liberty protections have exempted religious groups and individuals authorized to preside over marriage ceremonies. But not a single state has shielded the government employee at the front line of same-sex marriage, such as a marriage registrar who, if she has a religious objection to same-sex marriage, will almost certainly face a test of conscience. This article takes up what is arguably the hardest case for accommodation: exemptions for government employees, namely clerks, working in a state marriage registrar’s office. This article argues that government employees who have religious objections should be permitted to step aside from facilitating same-sex marriages when it poses no hardship for same-sex couples. It is incumbent upon a pluralistic liberal democracy to avoid forcing a needless choice between one’s beliefs and one’s livelihood. When another willing clerk is available, a religious objector should be able to step aside. In the case where another willing clerk is not available, however, the employee’s religious objection must yield because the state has granted same-sex couples the right to marry. This article documents the very real human costs that would flow from denying an accommodation and recounts a rash of dismissals, disciplinary proceedings, fines, and warnings leveled at government employees who object for religious reasons to assisting with same-sex marriage. This article then presents a proposed exemption that would allow government employees to step aside from facilitating same-sex marriages only when it poses no hardship to same-sex couples. Finally, this article addresses two commonly articulated reasons for dismissing the need to accommodate government employees: that a religious liberty accommodation would unconstitutionally burden the right to marry, and that government employees owe taxpayers service untainted by their private religious beliefs

The Overlooked Costs of Religious Deference

Citing the Qur\u27an, a German divorce court judge this year denied a fast track divorce to a Muslim woman who had been the victim of domestic violence and death threats from her husband. The judge rejected her application because the husband\u27s exercise of his right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria for an expedited divorce. The decision, which sparked a firestorm of controversy, comes at an important time in the movement to embrace pluralistic understandings of family relationships. Scholars and policymakers around the world are advancing various schemes for sharing state control over domestic disputes with religious groups-ranging from proposals to share jurisdiction over family disputes with religious bodies to enforcing religious understandings, like any other prenuptial agreement. This Article asks how women and children will fare in a system of religious deference. It maintains that the state has an important protective function to play for these traditionally vulnerable groups. Enforcing certain religious understandings of marital relationships will likely undermine a woman \u27s ability to exit the relationship and, consequently, prevent her from policing the conduct in her own relationship and with respect to her children. Policymakers should proceed cautiously with any proposal to hand over authority for marital disputes since family violence occurs in religious communities, as it does throughout society, but is tolerated by some religious leaders and adherents. Drawing on our experience with faith-based exemptions to the duty to provide medical care for children, this Article concludes that the costs of giving greater deference to religious understandings of family relationships must seriously be considered before we are willing to rob women and children of the state\u27s protections

Introduction: Mental Health and the Law

The mentally ill face some vexing problems. Fortunately, many of these are ones where a body of interdisciplinary work can assist legal decisionmakers to protect more adequately the interests of the mentally ill, and those of society. This set of five articles prepared for the March 2004 Washington University School of Law conference on Mental Health and the Law brings this literature to bear on the gamut of issues raised in society’s struggle to better address the pressing needs of the mentally ill. Given the centrality of competence determinations to this field, it is appropriate that this set contains a pair of articles about competence. The set also devotes much-needed attention to ethical dilemmas posed by the representation of clients afflicted with mental health problems—filling an important hole in the mental health literature. Giving credence to Justice Brandies’s observation that the states are laboratories of experimentation, this set of articles also reviews innovative approaches to state regulation of mental health professionals and the provision of services, and highlights the promise of these approaches. Importantly, the authors candidly point out some of the failures of state law. Obviously, we should learn from our failures as well as our successes. Perhaps most notably, these articles examine the intersection of the mental health system with legal systems, and highlight the costs of artificially parsing human problems—which for all of us are complex and messy—into neat little boxes labeled “juvenile justice” or “family and dependency” law. By unraveling the complex interplay between these systems, the authors advance considerably our understanding of the challenges facing the mentally ill in navigating them. The articles also suggest concrete ways in which legal education can instill a greater awareness of mental health issues. By doing so, the authors give hope that the next generation of attorneys, legal policymakers, and regulators will better respond to the needs of the mentally ill

Trusting Mothers: A Critique of the American Law Institute\u27s Treatment of De Facto Parents

As a Siben Distinguished Lecturer, Professor Wilson was asked to write an article for the Hofstra Law Review. Her article, cited below, may be downloaded from the link at the top of the page. Robin F. Wilson, Trusting Mothers: A Critique of the American Law Institute\u27s Treatment of De Facto Parents, 38 Hofstra L. Rev. 1103 (2010)