Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Philosophy of language has for some time now been the very core of the discipline of philosophy. But where did it begin? Frege has sometimes been identified as its father, but in fact its origins lie much further back, in a tradition that arose in eighteenth-century Germany. Michael Forster explores that tradition. He also makes a case that the most important thinker within that tradition was J. G. Herder. It was Herder who established such fundamental principles in the philosophy of language as that thought essentially depends on language and that meaning consists in the usage of words. It was he who on that basis revolutionized the theory of interpretation ("hermeneutics") and the theory of translation. And it was he who played the pivotal role in founding such whole new disciplines concerned with language as anthropology and linguistics. In the course of developing these historical points, this book also shows that Herder and his tradition are in many ways superior to dominant trends in more recent philosophy of language: deeper in their principles and broader in their focus.

Language and languages --- Langage et langues --- Philosophy. --- Philosophie --- Herder, Johann Gottfried, --- Semantics --- Philosophy --- von Herder, Johann Gottfried, --- Language and languages - Philosophy --- von Herder, Johann Gottfried, - 1744-1803

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Public support to families with pre-school children can be in the form of cash benefits (e.g. child allowances) or of "in-kind" support (e.g. care services such as kindergartens). The mix of these support measures varies greatly across OECD countries, from a cash / in-kind composition of 10%/90% to 80%/20%. This paper imputes the value of services into an "extended" household income and compares the resulting distributive patterns and the redistributive effect of these two strands of family policies. On average, cash and in-kind transfers each constitute 7 – 8% of the incomes of families with young children. Both instruments are redistributive. Cash transfers reduce child poverty by one third, with the estimated impacts in Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Hungary and Finland performing above average. When services are accounted for, child poverty falls by one quarter and poverty among children enrolled in childcare is more than halved. This reduction is highest in Belgium, France, Hungary, Iceland and Sweden.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This paper looks at how the income distribution in countries changes when the value of publicly-provided services to households is included. We consider five major categories of public services: education, health care, social housing, childcare and elderly care. On average across OECD countries, spending on these “in-kind” benefits accounts for about 13% of GDP, slightly more than the spending on cash transfers – but with considerable cross-country variation. Broadening the income concept to account for in-kind benefits considerably increases households’ economic resources: in a typical OECD country, the average annual household income would be close to USD 28 000, rather than USD 22 000 in purchasing power parities. But public services also contribute to reducing income inequality, by between one-fifth and one-third depending on the inequality measure. Mexico and, according to most inequality measures, the United States, Portugal, Ireland, and the United Kingdom record higher reduction rates, while Slovenia records lower ones. Across all countries, redistributive effects are stronger among specific population groups at higher risk of poverty. Between 2000 and 2007, the redistributive impact of public services remained stable overall. However, the impact became stronger in countries where the share of services in household income increased significantly, while it weakened in those countries where this share decreased. The paper suggests that publicly provided services fulfil an important direct redistributive role in OECD countries.

Employment --- Social Issues/Migration/Health

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This paper looks at how the income distribution in countries changes when the value of publicly-provided services to households is included. We consider five major categories of public services: education, health care, social housing, childcare and elderly care. On average across OECD countries, spending on these “in-kind” benefits accounts for about 13% of GDP, slightly more than the spending on cash transfers – but with considerable cross-country variation. Broadening the income concept to account for in-kind benefits considerably increases households’ economic resources: in a typical OECD country, the average annual household income would be close to USD 28 000, rather than USD 22 000 in purchasing power parities. But public services also contribute to reducing income inequality, by between one-fifth and one-third depending on the inequality measure. Mexico and, according to most inequality measures, the United States, Portugal, Ireland, and the United Kingdom record higher reduction rates, while Slovenia records lower ones. Across all countries, redistributive effects are stronger among specific population groups at higher risk of poverty. Between 2000 and 2007, the redistributive impact of public services remained stable overall. However, the impact became stronger in countries where the share of services in household income increased significantly, while it weakened in those countries where this share decreased. The paper suggests that publicly provided services fulfil an important direct redistributive role in OECD countries.

Employment --- Social Issues/Migration/Health