Questioning Market Aversion in Gender Equality Strategies: Designing Legal Mechanisms for the Promotion of Gender Equality in the Family and the Market

This Article suggests that tax and welfare policies that promote gender equality require creative thinking about the design of social mechanisms for the promotion of women. It offers a framework for expanding the institutional imagination in order to recalibrate welfare state reforms to promote women. In particular, we advocate the creative use of legal tools and doctrine to dismantle existing dichotomies between private and public, understand the various goals different mechanisms can serve and reassemble them to promote different mixes of normative goals. We propose doing so by looking simultaneously at two fields of redistribution: welfare state benefits and services on the one hand and income taxation on the other. These two fields serve similar goals and accordingly, we argue, should be analyzed in light of the same policy considerations and normative underpinnings. Since the goals of these two fields are comparable, the mechanisms that both fields use should also be compatible

Questioning Market Aversion in Gender Equality Strategies: Designing Legal Mechanisms for the Promotion of Gender Equality in the Family and the Market

This Article suggests that tax and welfare policies that promote gender equality require creative thinking about the design of social mechanisms for the promotion of women. It offers a framework for expanding the institutional imagination in order to recalibrate welfare state reforms to promote women. In particular, we advocate the creative use of legal tools and doctrine to dismantle existing dichotomies between private and public, understand the various goals different mechanisms can serve and reassemble them to promote different mixes of normative goals. We propose doing so by looking simultaneously at two fields of redistribution: welfare state benefits and services on the one hand and income taxation on the other. These two fields serve similar goals and accordingly, we argue, should be analyzed in light of the same policy considerations and normative underpinnings. Since the goals of these two fields are comparable, the mechanisms that both fields use should also be compatible

Human Trafficking in Southeast Asia: Results from a Pilot Project in Vietnam

Human trafficking is one of the most widely spread and fastest growing crimes in the world. However, despite the scope of the problem, the important human rights issues at stake and the professed intent of governments around the world to put an end to "modern day slavery", there is very little that is actually known about the nature of human trafficking and those most at risk as potential victims. This is due in large part to the difficulty in collecting reliable and statistically useful data. In this paper we present the results of a pilot study run in rural Vietnam with the aim of overcoming these data issues. Rather than attempt to identify victims themselves, we rely on the form rural migration often takes in urbanizing developing countries to instead identify households that were sources of trafficking victims. This allows us to construct a viable sampling frame, on which we conduct a survey using novel techniques such as anchoring vignettes, indirect sampling, list randomization and social network analysis to construct a series of empirically valid estimates that can begin to shed light on the problem of human trafficking

Questioning Market Aversion in Gender Equality Strategies: Designing Legal Mechanisms for the Promotion of Gender Equality in the Family and the Market

This Article suggests that tax and welfare policies that promote gender equality require creative thinking about the design of social mechanisms for the promotion of women. It offers a framework for expanding the institutional imagination in order to recalibrate welfare state reforms to promote women. In particular, we advocate the creative use of legal tools and doctrine to dismantle existing dichotomies between private and public, understand the various goals different mechanisms can serve and reassemble them to promote different mixes of normative goals. We propose doing so by looking simultaneously at two fields of redistribution: welfare state benefits and services on the one hand and income taxation on the other. These two fields serve similar goals and accordingly, we argue, should be analyzed in light of the same policy considerations and normative underpinnings. Since the goals of these two fields are comparable, the mechanisms that both fields use should also be compatible