000			02271nab a22002057a 4500
003			NY
005			20201126151641.0
008			201014b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_cNY
100	1		_aSoska, Tracy M.
245	1	0	_aConfluence _h[electronic resource] : _ban afterword / _cTracy M. Soska &Alice K. Johnson.
300			_app. 243-248.
520			_aThis article compares social assistance policies in China and Sweden, with a special focus on the means of translating policy intentions into local practices. Unlike China, Sweden has laws regulating social assistance, which is intended to ensure a ‘reasonable standard of living’. Though considered a legal right, assistance is Sweden is means-tested. While social assistance claims are dealt with by the welfare bureaucracy in Sweden, in China the process of application involves the input of cadres, administrative officials from different levels of government, and neighbours. The challenges facing Sweden are to find ways to cope with long-term social assistance and to help recipients find work. The challenges facing China are to establish a social assistance law and standardized management procedures, and to incorporate the resources of social work.
520			_a本文主要比較中國和瑞典的社會救助政策，特別關注政策意圖到在地實踐的轉化過程。研究發現瑞典和中國不同之處是，瑞典社會救助乃是通過法律來規範的，以保障人民有一個「合理的生活水平」。雖然瑞典的救助是一種公民權利，但實際上是需要入息審查。在瑞典社會救助的申請是有福利部門來處理，但在中國將有不同部門的干部、行政官員和街道居委會來參與。瑞典現在面臨的挑戰是如何應對長期的社會救助以及如何協助社會救助者尋找工作；而中國則面臨如何建立社會救助法律、標准化管理程序及引入社會工作專業等難題。
538			_aMode of access: Internet.
700	1		_aJohnson, Alice K.
773	0		_tJournal of community practice _g2004, Vol. 12, No. 3-4 _x1070-5422
856			_uhttp://ezproxy01.ny.edu.hk:2048/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J125v12n03_15 _zClick here to access full-text article
942			_2lcc _cE-ARTICLE
999			_c40128 _d40128