請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72845
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭麗珍 | |
dc.contributor.author | Ching-Ling Li | en |
dc.contributor.author | 李靜玲 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T07:07:54Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-08-29 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2019-08-29 | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2019-07-23 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 王永慈(2005)「台灣的貧窮問題;相關研究的檢視」。台大社工學刊,10:1-54,台北市:台灣大學。
王永慈(2007)「積極促進”(activation) 概念的解析」。東吳社會工作學報,(16),151-173。 王永慈(2007)台灣的扶貧政策,編入王卓祺、鄧廣良、魏雁濱主編兩岸三地社會政策—理論與實務,香港:中文大學出版社。 吳 定(1998)「自政策學習觀點論政府再造之推動」。考詮季刊, 16, 1998, 49-61,台北市:考試院。 吳定(1999)公共政策辭典 (全),臺北:五南。 朱若柔 & Neuman, W. L. (2000)社會研究方法-質化與量化取向。台北:揚智。 李庚霈(2012)「生活扶助戶就業促進策略成效分析探討」。社區發展季刊,137:86-97,台北市:內政部。 李淑容(2007)「台灣新貧現象及其因應對策」。東吳社會工作學報,17:pp.193-219,台北市:東吳大學。 李易駿(2006)「社會排除:流行或挑戰」。社會政策與社會工作學刊,10(1):1-47。 李易駿主編(2006)解讀社會政策。台北市:群學。 李碧涵(2002)「勞動體制的發展:全球化下的挑戰與改革」,社會政策與社會工作學刊,第六卷第一期,pp.185-219。 李碧涵(2005)福利國家向右走: 工作福利國家的創新性改革,台灣社會福利學會年會《社會暨健康政策的變動與創新趨勢: 邁向多元, 整合的福利體制》 術研討會。 李健鴻(2009)「公共就業服務體制的有限分權化與差異調控分析」,臺灣民主季刊,6(2),127-168。 李健鴻(2010)「『積極促進』治理下就業保險失業給付制度的實踐困境」,臺灣民主季刊,7(2),125-176。 李健鴻(2015)「『工作福利』治理下『個人化服務模式』對失業者權利與義務的影響」,人文及社會科學集刊,27(1),45-88。 辛炳隆(2003)「積極性勞動市場政策的意涵與實施經驗」,就業安全,2.1:9-15。 呂朝賢(2007)「貧窮動態及其成因-從生命週期到生命歷程」。臺大社會工作學刊,14,167-210。 林水波(2004)「制度移植的策略性評估-以公投法為例」,國家政策季刊,3(1),49-80。 林萬億(2006)台灣的社會福利:歷史經驗與制度分析,台北:五南。 林萬億(2010)社會福利,台北:五南。 周怡君,鍾秉正合著(2006)。社會政策與立法。臺北:紅葉。 胡幼慧主編(1996)。質性研究—理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。臺北:巨流。 柯于璋(2012)「政策移植與移植政策評估指標之建立—結合政策過程與知識應用之雙元演化觀點」。公共行政學報,43,pp.63-90。 許家豪(2002)第三條路及其批評. 台北: 聯經. 孫建忠(2002)貧窮與社會救助,編入呂寶靜主編社會工作與台灣社會,台北:巨流。 孫健忠(2009)「工作” 與 “福利” 連結的試析: 從 “勞役所試煉”,“工作福利” 到 “工有酬」。 臺灣社會福利學刊,8(1),119-147。 郭俊巖(2003)工作福利的發展與理論: 英美經驗的探討與借鏡(博士論文)。 郭俊巖、王德睦(2008)「全球化下脫貧策略的政治經濟背景研究:從Anthony Giddens觀點的探討」。東吳社會工作學報,18,pp.105-134,台北市。 郭俊巖(2010)「美國工作福利政策的形成與轉化: 以 AFDC 改革爲例」。臺灣社會福利學刊,8(2),pp.329-371。 陳向明(2002)社會科學質的研究。臺北:五南。 黃 洪(2013)「無窮」的盼望:香港貧窮問題探析。中華出版社。 傅從喜(2006)「我國公共服務擴大就業計畫之再就業效果評析:從積極勞動市場的角度」。社會政策與社會工作學刊,第十卷第一期,pp.115-149,台北市。 潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究:理論與應用。臺北:心理。 蔡明璋(1996)臺灣的貧窮:下層階級的結構分析,臺北:巨流圖書。 鄭怡世(2006)台灣戰後社會工作發展的歷史分析,國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系博士論文。 鄭麗珍(2000)「親屬互助原則與社會救助審查—以女性單親家庭為例」。國立政治大學社會學報,30:113-143,台北市:政治大學。 鄭麗珍(2017)105年積極性社會救助發展研究計畫,衛生福利部委託。 簡春安、鄒平儀(2004)社會工作研究法(二版),台北市:巨流。 衛生福利部(2013)2013年低收入戶及中低收入戶生活狀況調查報告。 Auspos, P., & Fulbright-Anderson, K. (Eds.). (2006). Community change: Theories, practice, and evidence. Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change. Austin, M. J., & Feit, M. D. (2013). Changing welfare services: Case studies of local welfare reform programs. Routledge. Babbie, E. R. (1998). The practice of social research. International Thomson Publishing Services. Barbier, J. C. (2005). Activating social protection and employment insurance. TLM. net Working Paper. Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The human consequences. Columbia University Press. Bennett, C. J. (1991). How states utilize foreign evidence. Journal of Public Policy, 11(01), 31-54. Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy sciences, 25(3), 275-294. Bernick, M. (2005). Job training that gets results: ten principles of effective employment programs. WE Upjohn Institute. Berkel, R., & Moller, I. H. (2002). Inclusion through participation. Bristol: The Policy Press. Bonoli, G. (2005). The Politics of the New Social Policies: providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare state, Policy and Politics, 33:3, 431-449. Bruttel, O., & Sol, E. (2006). Work First as a European model? Evidence from Germany and the Netherlands. Policy & Politics, 34(1), 69-89. Burtless, G. T. (1997). Welfare recipients' job skills and employment prospects. The Future of Children, 39-51. California Department of Social Service (CDSS) (2016). CalWORKs: Program Overview. California Department of Social Service (CDSS) (2017). CalWORKs Annual Summary. CalWORKs Handbook (2014). CalWORKs Handbook: Family Stabilization Program for CalWORKs Clients. https://www.alamedasocialservices.org/public/services/county_policies_and_regulations/docs/42-7.5.pdf City & County of San Francisco (2012). Jobs Now: San Francisco's Subsidized Employment program. https://peerta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/public/uploaded_files/Jjobs%20Now%20Presentation_LK.pdf Cordero-Guzmán, H. R. (2001). Interorganizational networks among community-based organizations. Unpublished manuscript. Cordero-Guzman, H. (2014). Community-Based Organizations, Immigrant Low-Wage Workers, and the Workforce Development System in the United States. New York: Baruch College at the City University of New York. https://www.gcir.org/sites/default/files/resources/Cordero-WorkerCenters-WorkforceDevelopment-3-14-out. pdf. D'Andrade, A., Simon, J. D., Fabella, D., Castillo, L., Mejia, C., & Shuster, D. (2017). The California Linkages Program: Doorway to Housing Support for Child Welfare‐Involved Parents. American journal of community psychology, 60(1-2), 125-133. Danziger, S. K., Kalil, A., & Anderson, N. J. (2000). Human capital, physical health, and mental health of welfare recipients: Co‐occurrence and correlates. Journal of Social Issues, 56(4), 635-654. Danziger, S. K., & Seefeldt, K. S. (2003). Barriers to employment and the ‘hard to serve’: Implications for services, sanctions, and time limits. Social Policy and Society, 2(02), 151-160. Danziger, S. K., Danziger, S., Seefeldt, K. S., & Shaefer, H. L. (2016). Increasing Work Opportunities and Reducing Poverty Two Decades After Welfare Reform. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(1), 241-244. Daguerre, A. (2007). Active Labour Market Policies and Welfare Reform: Europe and the US in comparative. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Diamond, P. and Lodge, G. (2014). Dynamic Social Security after the crisis: Towards a new welfare state? International Social Security Review, 67, 3-4, 37-60. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: a review of the policy transfer literature. Political studies, 44(2), 343-357. Esping-Andersen, G. (Ed.). (1996). Welfare states in transition: National adaptations in global economies. Sage. Esping-Andersen, G. (2001).A Welfare State for the Twenty-First Century, in A. Giddens (ed.) The Global Third Way Debate, Cambridge: Polity. Falk, G. (2017). The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements. Feldman, A. R. (2007). What works in work-first welfare?. Harvard University. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1998). Interviewing: the art of science. Collecting and interpreting qualitative material. Fraser, N., Gutiérrez, R., & Peña-Casas, R. (Eds.). (2011). Working poverty in Europe. Springer. Gatta, M. L., & McCabe, K. P. (2005). Not just getting by: The new era of flexible workforce development. Lexington Books. George, V., & Howards, I. (1991). Poverty Amidst Affluence. Books. Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way. Cambridge. Polity, 129. Gilbert, N., & Terrell, P. (2002). Dimensions of social welfare policy. Allyn & Bacon. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative politics, 275-296. Handler, J. F., & Hasenfeld, Y. (2006). Blame welfare, ignore poverty and inequality. Cambridge University Press. Haskins, R. (2006). Work over welfare: The inside story of the 1996 welfare reform law. Washington, DC: Brookings. Haskins, R. (2016). TANF at age 20: Work still works. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(1), 224-231. Karoly, L. A., Bozick, R., Davis, L. M., Kitmitto, S., Turk-Bicakci, L., Bos, J. M., ... & Blankenship, C. (2015). Evaluation of the SB 1041 Reforms to California’s CalWORKs Program. RAND Corporation. Kildal, N. (2001). Workfare tendencies in Scandinavian welfare policies. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO. Leo, C. and T. Andres (2004). Community Initiation of Welfare-to-Work. Winnipeg: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Levitas, R. (1998). Social exclusion in the new breadline Britain survey. Perceptions of Poverty and Social Exclusion, 41. Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., Lloyd, E., & Patsios, D. (2007). The multi-dimensional analysis of social exclusion. Levitas, R. et al. (2007) The multi-dimensional analysis of social exclusion. Lewis, M. and Johnson, R. (2009) San Mateo County Family Resource Center: Working Towards Self Sufficiency with Open Hands and Opened Minds. https://mackcenter.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/chi-2016-05-06/CHI/TOC-CHI-107.pdf Lindsay, C., McQuaid, R. W., & Dutton, M. (2007). New approaches to employability in the UK: combining ‘human capital development’and ‘work first’strategies?. Journal of social policy, 36(4), 539-560. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American political science review, 65(3), 682-693. Lodemel, I., & Trickey, H. (2001). 'An offer you can't refuse': workfare in international perspective. Policy Press. Marshall, T. H. (1981). The right to welfare and other essays. Free Pr. Marwell, N. P. (2004). Privatizing the welfare state: Nonprofit community-based organizations as political actors. American sociological review, 69(2), 265-291. Mead, L. M. (1991) Why the poor are still with us: The politics of the new poverty. Public Interest, 103, 3-20. Morel, N., Palier, B., & Palme, J. (Eds.). (2012). Towards a social investment welfare state?: ideas, policies and challenges. Policy Press. Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2000). Commentary.'Work first': workfare and the regulation of contingent labour markets. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24(1), 119-138. Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2001). Exporting workfare/importing welfare-to-work: exploring the politics of Third Way policy transfer. Political geography, 20(4), 427-460. Pierson, P. (1994). Dismantling the Welfare State: Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pierson, C. (1998). Beyond the welfare state? the new political economy of welfare. Penn State Press. Pizzolato, J. E., Olson, A. B., & Monje-Paulson, L. N. (2017). Finding Motivation to Learn: Exploring Achievement Goals in California Community College CalWORKs Students. Journal of Adult Development, 24(4), 295-307. Powell, T. W., Jo, M., Martin, C., Philip, W., & Astone, N. M. (2017). “IT'S LIKE A SHOULDER TO LEAN ON”: SOCIAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY AN INNER‐CITY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 333-345. Prince, J., & Austin, M. J. (2001). Innovative programs and practices emerging from the implementation of welfare reform: A cross-case analysis. Journal of Community Practice, 9(3), 1-14. Reed, D. F., & Karpilow, K. (2010). UNDERSTANDING CalWORKs. California Center for Research on Women & Children,. Rodgers, H. R. (2015). American poverty in a new era of reform. Routledge. Rose, R. (1993). Lesson-drawing in public policy: A guide to learning across time and space (Vol. 91). Chatham House Publishers. Rose, R. (2004). Learning from comparative public policy: A practical guide. Routledge. Schoeni, R. G., & Blank, R. M. (2000). What has welfare reform accomplished? Impacts on welfare participation, employment, income, poverty, and family structure, working paper 7627 (March 2000). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Schott, L., Floyd, I., & Burnside, A. (2017). How states use funds under the TANF block grant. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, D. C. Schram, S. F., & Schram, S. (2002). Praxis for the poor: Piven and Cloward and the future of social science in social welfare. NYU Press. Shinar, C. (2013). The Challenges Posed to Welfare States by Globalization, European Review, 21(03), 448 – 464. Singley, S. (2003). Barriers to Employment among Long-term Beneficiaries: A review of recent international evidence. Centre for Social Research and Evalution. Svihula, J., & Austin, M. J. (2001). Fostering neighborhood involvement in workforce development: The Alameda County neighborhood jobs pilot initiative. Journal of Community Practice, 9(3), 55-72. Taylor, M. J., & Barusch, A. S. (2004). Personal, family, and multiple barriers of long-term welfare recipients. Social Work, 49(2), 175-183. Wilson, W. J., Moen, P., Dempster-McClain, D., & Walker, H. (1998). Jobless poverty: A new form of social dislocation in the inner-city ghetto. A Nation Divided: Diversity, Inequality, and Community in American Society. Zellman, G. L., Klerman, J. A., Reardon, E., Farley, D., Humphrey, N., Chun, T., & Steinberg, P. (1999). Welfare Reform in California. Rand Corporation. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72845 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 如何協助經濟弱勢投入就業以利改善經濟狀況的概念,經常是社會工作濟貧服務的工作目標。我國自民國100年社會救助法新制上路,除了對於經濟弱勢給予更廣泛的照顧外,協助他們脫離貧窮狀態、進而自立亦是新法推動的重點,在就業協助方面,不僅藉由社福與勞動部門共同合作提供「就業轉介」服務,促進有工作能力未就業的低收入戶及中低收入戶投入就業市場,亦鼓勵各地方政府發展協助經濟弱勢服務方案;然而在就業轉介的服務成效上不如預期,一方面思考目前政策與方案推行之困難與阻礙,另一方面更期待藉由探究他國之協助經濟弱勢促進就業策略,能夠對於我國發展就業脫貧措施有政策及方案工具上的啟發。
本研究以文獻分析法疏理美國和英國在「工作福利」框架下,各自就業促進的政策脈絡,比較其政治脈絡、意識型態、社會福利議題偏重、權利與義務的平衡、政策推動策略等差異;進而理解其分別發展出的就業自立方案之運作設計、執行方式、方案成效、以及福利與就業部門的配合等,如何搭配就業優先、人力資源訓練、福利服務以及辦理的行政框架;同時,採深度訪談方式,分析台灣目前由縣市政府自行辦理或委外辦理之就業自立脫貧方案,在方案規劃、執行措施等推動情形、以及目前遭遇的問題。 根據研究結果,本研究在社會政策與社會方案實務面上分別做出建議:在就業促進政策方面,在就業輔導與福利服務方面應結合行政專精化,甚至思考推動方案參與者有強制性工作要求之可能;在就業促進方案設計方面,應針對經濟弱勢之方案參與對象進行分類,並對方案參與者的就業能力進行區分,提供求職者能夠根據不同的工作能力、和競爭力選擇保護程度不同的職場,協助他們獲得工作經驗,更進一步增加就業職缺及訓練方案的多元設計;在福利服務的支持方面,應落實家庭支持以及人力資源的投資、以及求職津貼之相關運用,以協助經濟弱勢在投入就業市場的過程能夠逐步穩定、進而經濟自立。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Assisting people with low-income find employment in order to improve their economic conditions is the foundation of social work poverty service. In Taiwan, the social assistance system considers working ability as one of the requirements for low-income household qualifications. Not only does it regard “working value” as important, but is also aimed to help the people in low-income and middle-low-income households who have working ability actually get into employment.
The Social Assistance Act was amended on July 1, 2011. In the Act, the governments, including central and local, have been encouraged to take more progressive anti-poverty strategies to help the low-income households to gain their economic sufficiency. The Act requested the Labor Department and the Welfare Department in the Central government to develop a referral system to help the able-bodied people in the low income household to find jobs. However, the number of beneficiaries of the referral system is not as expected. Since these employment poverty reduction programs in Taiwan has just developed in these few years, how to improve the program is a significant issue. This research on the one part, I’d like to understand the development context Active Labor Market Policies in the US, and UK. Though TANF and New Deal, the Workfare program in the US and UK has Mandatory requirements. The other part, I’d like aims to compare the effects of three poverty-alleviation employment programs in Taiwan, which is to help able-bodied welfare recipients to engage in job activities. The program participants, program directors and social workers are interviewed respectively to find out what experience in their pathways to employment and what social services and strategies provided are effective in terms of finding jobs and maintaining job stability. Based on the research result, this study makes recommendations on the aspects of social policy and social program practice. In terms of assisting employment policies, we should combine administrative specialization in employment counseling and welfare services, and even consider the possibility of promoting mandatory job requirements for program participants. In the design of employment supporting programs, the economically disadvantaged program participants should be classified, and the employability of program participants should be differentiated. According to different work abilities of job seekers, programmer could assign them workplaces with different degrees of protection, in order to help them to gain work experience and further increase the multiple design of training programs. In terms of support for welfare services, family support, investment in human resources, and the use of job-searching allowances should be implemented to help the economically disadvantaged to gradually stabilize the process of entering the job market and finally become economically independent. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T07:07:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-D01330003-1.pdf: 2707523 bytes, checksum: f5267c84ddee25acc95b43626d2d7e12 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書
謝辭 中文摘要…………………………………..…………...…………………i 英文摘要…………………………………..…………...………………...ii 目錄………………………………………..…………………………….iv 表次………………………………………..…………………………..vii 圖次………………………………………..…………………………..vii 第一章 緒論………………………………….……………..……….1 第一節 研究背景……………………………………….........1 第二節 研究動機與目的………………………………………5 第二章 文獻回顧……………………………….…..…………………..9 第一節 概念界定…………..…………………………………9 (一) 貧窮的觀點……………………………………9 (二) 工作倫理……………………………………..10 (三) 何謂積極促進………………………………..12 (四) 何謂工作福利………………………………..13 (五) 我國經濟弱勢之工作樣貌…………………..15 第二節 福利國家的轉變………………….……….................18 (一) 福利思潮的轉變……………………………..18 (二) 福利典範與意識型態的演進………………..19 第三節 積極促進就業政策在美國、英國和台灣的發展…..21 (一) 美國的「以工作換取福利」的發展脈絡…..21 (二) 英國的「以福利促進工作」的發展脈絡…..24 (三) 積極性社會救助在台灣的發展……………..28 第四節 工作福利方案策略及操作…………………………..33 (一) 經濟弱勢就業不易之可能原因……………..33 (二) 工作優先策略與人力資本發展……………..35 (三) 工作福利方案促進就業……………………..37 第三章 研究方法……….………………………………….………..…41 第一節 研究架構……………………………………………..41 (一) 政策脈絡之比較研究架構…………………..42 (二) 台灣所推動的就業自立脫貧方案…………..43 第二節 研究取向……………………………………………..45 (一) 比較研究的框架……………………………..45 (二) 質性研究取向………………………………..47 (三) 文獻分析法…………………………………..48 (四) 深度訪談法…………………………………..50 第三節 深度訪談研究過程..................................................52 (一) 研究標的..........................................................52 (二) 研究對象..........................................................52 (三) 資料收集..........................................................56 (四) 資料分析..........................................................56 第四節 研究倫理與嚴謹性…………………………………..58 (一) 研究嚴謹度考量..............................................58 (二) 研究倫理..........................................................58 第四章 研究結果分析……….…………………………….………..…60 第一節 美、英、台的就業促進政策與策略…………………..60 (一) 美國「以工作換取福利」…………………..60 (二) 英國「以福利促進工作」…………………..67 (三) 台灣「提供福利、促進工作」……………..70 (四) 美國、英國、台灣的就業促進政策脈絡…..79 第二節 美、英、台之就業脫貧方案…………………………..82 (一) 美國的工作福利方案………………………..82 (二) 英國的工作福利方案………………………..88 (三) 台灣的就業脫貧方案………………………..90 (四) 美國、英國和台灣的就業促進方案………..96 第三節 台灣就業脫貧方案……….…………………………98 (一) 方案的規劃背景及參加者參與誘因………..99 (二) 方案的服務過程及參與者的參加歷程……114 (三) 脫貧方案協助就業與參與者的求職歷程…124 第五章 結論與建議……….……………………………….…………134 第一節 研究結論….…………………………….………..…134 (一) 美國「以工作換取福利」…………………134 (二) 英國「以福利促進工作」…………………136 (三) 我國的經濟弱勢就業方案…………………137 (四) 美、英、台就業促進政策及方案之比較…140 第二節 研究建議….…………………………….………..…141 第三節 研究限制….…………………………….………..…145 參考文獻………………………………………………………..…….147 表 次 表3-1:就業脫貧方案規劃及執行者訪談對象………………………53 表3-2:就業脫貧方案參與者訪談對象………………………………55 表4-1:CalWORKs的工作福利法規…………………………………66 表4-2:美國、英國和台灣工作福利政策的發展脈絡………………81 表4-3:美國、英國和台灣就業促進方案內容比較…………………97 表4-4:就業脫貧方案內容比較………………………………………113 表5-1:美、英、臺工作福利政策的發展脈絡和內容比較…………140 圖 次 圖2-1:工作福利方案發展四階段……………………………………39 圖3-1:研究架構圖……………………………………………………41 圖3-2:工作福利發展解釋架構圖……………………………………42 圖3-3:工作福利發展解釋架構圖聚焦工作福利方案操作策略……43 圖3-4:工作福利方案發展四階段……………………………………44 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 如何協助低收入戶穩定就業?分析台灣就業脫貧方案現況並師法美國、英國之就業促進策略 | zh_TW |
dc.title | How to help low-income households to stabilize employment?
Analysis the poverty-alleviation employment programs in Taiwan and the employment promotion strategies in the US. and the UK. | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 周鎮忠,李健鴻,傅從喜,林桂碧 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 積極促進,工作福利,就業脫貧方案,經濟弱勢,TANF,New Deal, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Activation,Workfare,Poverty-alleviation Employment Programs,Economically Disadvantaged,TANF,New Deal, | en |
dc.relation.page | 153 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201901813 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2019-07-24 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 社會工作學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 社會工作學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.64 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。