Explore the vast range of titles available.

The most important element in the recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, which is intended to reduce the concentration of aid distributed under the direct support system, is the so-called redistributive payment. The redistributive effects of this instrument depend on its specific form implemented at the national level, the level of funding, and the area structure of holdings in a given country. The objective of this paper is to compare the targeting of the support distributed under the redistributive payment in the three new Member States of the European Union – Bulgaria, Lithuania and Poland. In order to achieve this objective, it was established which area groups of holdings benefit from (and which lose out on) the application of the redistributive payment in each country. In addition, the average amount of support for a holding per hectare of agricultural area, and the percentage change in this support due to the introduction of the redistributive payment, depending on the size of the holding, in individual countries, are shown as a function. The source material was the data made available by the ministries of agriculture of the countries under analysis, relating to 2018.

Domestic support disciplines under the Agreement on Agriculture are controversial, to say the least. The aggregate measurement of support (AMS) restricts Members’ policy space to provide product-specific support. The structural flaws in the determination of AMS further compel Members to explore alternatives. In contrast to the Amber Box, the Blue Box offers certain flexibilities for Members to exempt product-specific support from AMS calculation. The Blue Box reflects several elements which are seemingly typical to the Amber Box, except that it has certain production-limiting features. This article explores the legal bounds of the Blue Box measures, and its similarities and dissimilarities with the Amber Box. Towards this end, the article builds on a fresh legal understanding of the Blue Box based on its negotiating history and interpretative bounds, and also offers a fuller appreciation of market price support (MPS) and non-exempt direct payments under the Amber Box. While the calculation methodology for non-exempt direct payments bears a close resemblance to the calculation of MPS, the article argues that direct payment and MPS measures are fundamentally distinct types of product-specific support which makes the interchangeability of Blue and Amber Boxes seemingly difficult.

Nova Scotia's Supportive Care Program (SCP) is an individualized funding program that provides funds for people living with dementia (PLWD) or acquired brain injuries to purchase basic home care services such as personal care, respite, cleaning and cooking. The SCP has the potential to address the Quintuple Aim of enhancing care experience, improving population health, reducing costs, improving provider experience and improving health equity, yet qualitative evidence is lacking. The aim of this study is to use participatory program evaluation methods to evaluate the SCP and consider how effective it is in addressing the Quintuple Aim. The study objectives and corresponding methods are to (1) Co-develop a SCP logic model to guide the evaluation through consultations with a diverse group of stakeholders including PLWD, caregivers, care providers, researchers, government representatives, and nongovernment organizations, with attention to gender; (2) Evaluate the SCP based on the outcomes and outputs identified in the logic model using focus groups with PLWD, caregivers and home care providers, and interviews with PLWD and their caregivers; and (3) Mobilize knowledge about the ways the SCP addresses the Quintuple Aim through integrated knowledge translation activities with public, policy and research audiences. By focusing on clinically and socially vulnerable populations of PLWD and caregivers, the proposed evaluation of the SCP offers a valuable case in assessing the effectiveness of individually-funded home care in addressing the Quintuple Aim including health equity within the context of dementia care.

Environmental issues have been one the most important for sustainable agricultural development in recent years. The EU common agricultural policy (CAP) direct payments (DP) system, which requires the most significant financial resources, should also promote environmental sustainability in agriculture. However, there is a lack of systematic approach and instruments to assess the impact of the DP system to environmental sustainability. This paper examines the linkages between DP system and environmental sustainability indicators. The underlying research question is: how 2004-2013 CAP DP system had impacted environmental sustainability. To answer this, the article uses a comparative analysis, a statistical analysis, theoretical modelling as a basis to determine, prove and evaluate the linkages between DP system and agricul-tural environment sustainability indicators. The article also provides empirical results of Lithuania and Puglia region (Italy). These regions were selected because of the simi-larity by area size and population, however with different DP systems.

This paper analyses the distribution of direct payments (DPs) between farmers within the EU Member States (MS). The paper tries to identify some of the factors that can explain the differences between MS in terms of recent distribution and the evolution over time of the distribution of DPs, comparing results of different regression models. The analysis has confirmed that the concentration of direct payments is very heterogeneous across EU Member States and that it reaches very high values in some of them. This is even truer when, as in this paper, non-beneficiary farms are accounted for in the analysis of the DP distribution. The results support the idea that a large part of the concentration of the DP support is generated by the way land is distributed among farms. The results do not support the hypothesis that the models of implementation of the Single Payment Scheme can explain the observed differences among Member States in terms of DP concentration.

Sustainable agriculture is the basis for long-term economic growth ensuring employment for the rural population. The aim of this research is to assess the dynamics in agricultural output, investments, direct payments and energy use in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) during 2008-2017. The method of research is the evaluation of production factors generated by agriculture and related activities carried out by the model of the EAA system. The performance of the agricultural holdings is measured using economic indicators: output of the agricultural 'industry', gross fixed capital formation (GFCF), direct payments, return on capital, total labour force input, average farm income. We discuss the trends in absolute and relative indicators relates to different aspects of the sustainable agricultural development to identify the key priorities of the CAP in the Baltic States which are new European Union Member States. The results indicate that in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania EU support has affected investments in capital. The amount of GFCF over ten years annually grew an average by 0.1% in Estonia, by 8% in Latvia and by 17% in Lithuania which has led to increase productivity on farms, positively influenced growth on output agriculture and income as well. During the period 2008-2017 marked growth in the agricultural output levels and direct payments on average annually by more than 4% and 5-6%, respectively. These induced higher capital investments which require reasonable revision of the CAP measures in order to avoid overinvestment and address changes in the global agricultural markets.

With the extensive long-term care services for older people, the Nordic countries have been labelled ‘caring states’ as reported (Leira, Welfare state and working mothers: the Scandinavian experience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992). The emphasis on services and not cash benefits ensures the Nordics a central place in the public service model (Anttonen and Sipilä, J Eur Soc Policy 6:87–100, 1996). The main feature of this ideal model is public social care services, such as home care and residential care services, which can cover the need for personal and medical care, as well as assistance with household chores. These services are provided within a formally and professionally based long-term care system, where the main responsibility for the organization, provision and financing of care traditionally lays with the public sector. According to the principle of universalism (in: Antonnen et al. (eds), Welfare state, universalism and diversity, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2013), access to benefits such as home care and residential care is based on citizenship and need, not contributions nor merit. Also, care services should be made available for all and generally be used by all, with no stigma associated. Vabø and Szebehely (in: Anttonen (ed), Welfare State, universalism and diversity, Edward Elgar Publishing, London, 2012)) further argue that the Nordic service universalism is more than merely issues of eligibility and accessibility, in that it also encompasses whether services are attractive, affordable and flexible in order to meet a diversity of needs and preferences. However, recent decades have seen a continuous tendency towards prioritization of care for the most frail, contributing to unmet need, informalization of care and privatization in the use of topping up with market-based services. These changes have raised questions about increasing inequalities within Nordic long-term care systems. We investigate in the article what effect changes have for equality across social class and gender, for users and informal carers. The article is based on analysis of comparable national and international statistics and a review of national research literature and policy documents.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, essential workers have provided health care, food, and other necessities, often incurring considerable risk. At the pandemic's start, the federal government was in the process of tightening the \"public charge\" rule by adding nutrition and health benefits to the cash benefits that, if drawn, could subject immigrants to sanctions (for example, green card denial). Census Bureau data indicate that immigrants accounted for 13.6 percent of the population but 17.8 percent of essential workers in 2019. About 20.0 million immigrants held essential jobs, and more than one-third of these immigrants resided in US states bordering Mexico. Nationwide, 12.3 million essential workers and 18.9 million of their household members were at risk because of the new sanctions. The rule change (which was subsequently revoked) likely caused 2.1 million essential workers and household members to forgo Medicaid and 1.3 million to forgo Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program assistance on the eve of the pandemic, highlighting the potential of immigration policy changes to exacerbate health risks.

This article reviews the social care evidence concerning direct payments/personal budgets, before arguing for an extension of these concepts to the National Health Service (NHS). Despite a commitment to inter-agency health and social care, direct payments/personal budgets have only been available for the 'social care' part of people's lives. Moreover, many of the challenges faced by the NHS are precisely those which social care has turned to more individualised funding to help resolve. Against this background, the article speculates as to how such a system might work and seeks to address some popular misconceptions and potential objections.

Unemployment rates soared at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, increasing financial stress that can affect physical and mental health. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is the primary cash assistance program for low-income families in the US, with benefits conditional on work activities and subject to suspension. However, many states loosened requirements during the pandemic. Using TANF policy data and data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from the period January 2017-December 2020 with a triple-difference design, we found a general protective effect of supportive changes to TANF on poor physical and mental health days and binge drinking during the COVID-19 pandemic for likely TANF participants. For example, providing emergency cash benefits to those not already participating in TANF, waiving work requirements, waiving or pausing sanctions, and automatically recertifying benefits were associated with reductions in the number of mentally unhealthy days. This study provides support for increasing generosity and easing administrative burdens in safety-net programs to buffer against negative impacts of public health and economic crises.