Example collocations logo

Welfare in sentence

1448 examples of Welfare in a sentence

But China’s leaders must recognize that the country faces massive welfare losses, and thus should be willing to accept slower growth in the short term in exchange for a more stable long-term growth path.
Taxes were evaded on a massive scale, and the welfare state was characterized by endemic waste.
As a result, the Industrial Revolution accelerated economic development and human welfare.
This research shows that people of different races trust each other much less; whites are less willing to support welfare spending because it is perceived to favor minorities; more racially fragmented communities have less efficient governments, more corruption and patronage, more crime and fewer productive public goods per tax dollar.
Europe is rich and rapidly aging;Europeans, cushioned by generous welfare programs, are no longer prepared to accept "dirty jobs" in, say, agriculture or the leather industry.
Reformists also take an expansive view of religious law (Sharia), incorporating ideas of public welfare within a continually developing legislative process.
Thus, for reformists, banks and insurance companies serve the welfare of society, and this takes precedence over a traditional reading of religious texts.
Realization of the EU's so-called Lisbon strategy, adopted in 2000 with the promise of creating the world's most competitive economy, is threatened by a growing emphasis on static solidarity, reflected in high social welfare costs and the high taxes needed to finance them.
This implies that there is no need for ad hoc measures for young people, which merely risk overloading welfare systems with even more exemptions and special rules.
To what extent should political leaders see their role narrowly, in terms of promoting the interests of their citizens, and to what extent should they be concerned with the welfare of people everywhere?
The Islamic tradition of protecting the welfare of the poor can provide the language and legitimacy needed to inspire citizens to do their part.
Free trade would lead to an overwhelming boost to welfare everywhere, but especially in the developing world.
There are also one-off costs to host-country governments, such as processing applications and providing initial help with housing and welfare.
By excising from the draft Constitution the prospect of a welfare state run by judges, its framers will increase the chances that Britain and other doubters will, in the end, ratify the final product.
While her party program speaks of opening union contracts, relaxing job protection, and, in particular, overhauling the incentive structure of the welfare system, her government has been mostly silent about these issues.
Germany’s extensive welfare system spends 31% of the country’s GDP for entitlement programs operated by the government sector.
Small wonder that a huge majority of the population – and even a slight majority of CDU voters – prefer a strengthening of the welfare state to a more market-oriented system.
Lafontaine now plays directly on the preferences of public transfer recipients and firmly occupies the left margin of German politics, dreaming the dream of the everlasting welfare state that can draw on unlimited resources.
Many Christian Democrats may be dreaming of the next election, and a new coalition with the Free Democrats – and perhaps the Greens – that would carry out the necessary welfare and labor market reforms.
While Ronald Reagan, today’s Republican patron saint, was a big-government spender, Democrat Bill Clinton cut welfare entitlements and balanced the budget.
And, of course, better training in basic skills can also ultimately boost economic growth and increase social welfare.
As pure trade theory shows, the economic effects and welfare gains resulting from free trade are substituted, not enhanced, by those of free movement of labor.
It all seems as if, in the face of a crisis that calls into question decades of finance– driven capitalism and the dominance of free-market ideology, and despite widespread expectations of a revival of the welfare state, the social-democratic ideal has failed to convince a majority of Europeans that it can provide effective solutions.
Almost all of the world’s developed countries consider themselves, and are, social democracies: mixed economies with very large governments performing a wide array of welfare and social insurance functions, and removing large chunks of wealth and commodity distribution from the market.
Corporate welfare capitalism substituted for what in Europe would have been government provided social democracy.
In economic terms, each dollar spent would deliver $60 worth of welfare for the world’s youngest people.
In fact, the “no” campaign’s victory might have been even more resounding if the Westminster establishment’s desperate, last-minute offer to grant Scotland more powers on taxation, spending, and welfare had been included as an option in the ballot.
America's willingness to provide multi-billion dollar bail-outs to airlines or to create cartels to protect its steel and aluminum industries suggests that free market ideology is but a thin guise for old-fashioned corporate welfare: give to those with the appropriate connections.
And, obviously, the sense of “us” implies a sense of “them”: those whose welfare we consider less fundamental than our own.
It is in this high-pressure context that, last year, Moon Hyung-pyo, South Korea’s then-health and welfare minister, allegedly pressured the National Pension Service to back a controversial merger of two Samsung group affiliates that was essential to ensure a smooth transfer of managerial control to Lee.
BackNext