Talk:Social safety net
|WikiProject Economics||(Rated Stub-class)|
I removed the part about gun laws because in "bowling for columbine" michael moore states that gun ownership is much higher per captia in canada. Also, Belgium and Switzerland have extremely liberal gun laws, and much lower violent crime. I wouldn't have made the edit if there was a relevant reference. 188.8.131.52 17:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Won't another depression happend if the state loses to much money? Then how can "the social safety net" prevents us from a depression if the goverment loses it's money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely new on wikipedia and had no idea how to go about content modifications. I am very sorry if revamping the whole social safety net content insulted you. I am hereby asking you for forgiveness and to understand my endevour.
The reason why I wanted to change the whole social safety net content is the following. Safety nets in social sciencies are complex programs that require well though-out design, implementation and evaluation processes. Around the globe, thousands and thousands of programs have been designed with so many mistakes that they are prone to fail from inception. In the end, the benefits, very often too low, do not justify the costs. A large number of developing countries in Afria, Asia and Latin America cannot afford to waste money, let alone during current crises.
The content already in place was too simple to explain the complexity of social safety nets. The content I will upload will provide policy makers, practitioners, and academic groups with the rationale and guidelines on how best to design, implement and evaluate such programs. If you let me upload the content and start from scratch you will see what I'm talking about. Once I do this, you will be able to modify as much as you can. In the end, that is the idea. For us all to share useful information and improve the knowledge among the people that will make substantial changes for the humanity.
Thanks for your time and your consideration.
- Wikipedia is not the place to discuss questions of policy! —Tamfang (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Modifications coming soon
Since a week has past since I last posted my msg and no one seems interested in debating, I will be making some content changes with due arguments this week. Please feel free to debate with me. I am more than open-minded and I'm opened for suggestions.
Here are my reasons why I believe the article is fundamentally flawed.
- The social safety net is a term used to describe a collection of services provided by the state or other institutions such as friendly societies, including welfare, unemployment benefit, universal healthcare, homeless shelters, and sometimes subsidized services such as public transport, which prevent individuals from falling into poverty beyond a certain level.
I do partially agreed with the definition and aim of SSN as well as some of types of SSN transfers named here. However, safety nets are in general terms provided by public sector (international official aid and states) and the private sector (NGOs, private companies, charities, and informal household transfers). Also in the literature or jargon of development, welfare is what is called safety nets but in the U.S. same as social assistance in Europe. Safety net is the termed mainly used in developing countries. Moreover, unemployment insurance is part of the labor aspect of social protection, but it is not a safety net. Same goes for universal care, which is part of the health aspect of social protection. In the developing world health care only exists as fee waivers and exemptions for some. Same goes for schooling and some utilities.
- A practical example of how the safety net works would be a single mother with several children, unable to work. By receiving money from the government to support her children, along with universal health care and free education, she can give her children a better chance at becoming successful members of society, rather than be caught up in the hopelessness of extreme poverty.
(although I believe this a visual example, safety nets are more complex programs. As you will see, I will provide several examples including the gender aspect of safety nets).
- Comparisons of systems are endless, and among the most common are the ones between Canada and the United States, due to their proximity. Supporters of a strong social safety net argue that these programs have resulted in a much lower crime rate and general lower poverty levels in Canadian cities, and this benefits everyone. Critics argue that the taxes required to support the safety net inhibit growth and actually increase the barriers for socio-economic advancement, and that the safety net itself creates a perverse incentive to be unproductive and poor.
- A principal part of Canada's social safety net is its universal healthcare, known as Medicare, which was first proposed by Thomas Clement "Tommy" Douglas (called one of the "fathers of medicare"); in part for this, in 2004 Douglas was voted The Greatest Canadian for his achievements and contributions to Canada.
I believe this should be a separate section to disucss Canadian and American safety nets, which are some. But it is recommended to separate them from safety net programs in the developing world, which is a broader topic. But I do believe that it is necessary to include them as many safety nets in the developing world have learnt from them.
- In South Africa there are grants for people unable to support themselves. Many of the grants are focused on children. Social services administrate these grants.
I will give a more detailed example of South Africa once I finish uploading the content.
As a final note, I would like to encourage us all to improve the content of such important topic in the world. I believe you have knowledge in areas I do not, such as Canada and the US. So maybe it would be a good thing if we learn and profit from each other's comparative advantage.
- (I took the liberty of reformatting, to make it more obvious where you're quoting.)
- In the first paragraph, what's the issue? It says SSN is provided by the state and/or by non-state entities, and you say "however" it's provided by the public sector and/or the private sector — huh? You say some of those services are called SSN in some places and not others; well, maybe that's worth mentioning, but perhaps not in the lead sentence. As for excluding some of those services from the definition, that's likely to be contentious. —Tamfang (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help in reformatting and comments. Here's my feedback.
In the first paragraph, there is no precise issue, just a more specific definition of the providers of SSN in two broad categories that can be compared and more clearly understood by the audience. Public, which include states and large international organizations that spend substantial amounts of human and capital resources, that usually spend taxpayers money, and are more or less centralized. And private, which are smaller, mobilize less resources, they do not use taxpayers money but private, and tend to be decentralized and community-driven. I guess we can make it clearer by stating these differences.
You are absolutely right, it is worth mentioning different definitions of safety nets in different places.
As for sources, I would kindly ask you to be a little bit more patient. I'm not done uploading the whole information (hence the inuse application) plus I'm learning by doing. I will eventually upload all of the sources which come from the literature of safety nets.
- I notice that you added line-breaks after your first draft of these remarks. Why? WP interprets a blank line as a paragraph break already. Was that not enough whitespace for you? —Tamfang (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- And now I see you've undone at least some of the changes I made to bring the article in line with WIKIPEDIA FORMATTING STANDARDS. Through metaphoric gritted teeth I ask: Why? —Tamfang (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Which changes are we talking about here? Bullets? Line breaks? Please specify.
As for the blank lines, for some reason WP didn't recognize them before. I repeat, I am new here. Thanks for your consideration.
and now ...
SNWB tells me the article is finished. Now it needs to be examined for neutrality; as a bit of a crank I may not be the best one to do that. There are some phrases that bother me, e.g.: "an increasing number of safety net programs are extremely well thought out, correctly implemented, and demonstrably effective"; in general, little if any distinction is made between a program's nominal intent and its actual effect. —Tamfang (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Figure A/Figure B? Where are they?
There is a reference to two figures in the text, which implies, to me, either they where removed and the text needs rewriting, or the text was copied and pasted from another, possibly copyrighted source. Any arguments to the contrary?--Jeff (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm marking as a copyright issue as the majority of content is clearly lifted from a book - it even references diagrams not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)