TY - JOUR
T1 - Questioning market aversion in gender equality strategies
T2 - Designing legal mechanisms for the promotion of gender equality in the family and the market
AU - Shamir, Hila
AU - Dagan, Tsilly
AU - Carmeli, Ayelet
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/3
Y1 - 2018/3
N2 - This Article suggests that tax and welfare policies that promote gender equality require creative thinking about the design of social mechanisms for the promotion of women. It offers a framework for expanding the institutional imagination in order to recalibrate welfare state reforms to promote women. In particular, we advocate the creative use of legal tools and doctrine to dismantle existing dichotomies between private and public, understand the various goals different mechanisms can serve and reassemble them to promote different mixes of normative goals. We propose doing so by looking simultaneously at two fields of redistribution: welfare state benefits and services on the one hand and income taxation on the other. These two fields serve similar goals and accordingly, we argue, should be analyzed in light of the same policy considerations and normative underpinnings. Since the goals of these two fields are comparable, the mechanisms that both fields use should also be compatible.
AB - This Article suggests that tax and welfare policies that promote gender equality require creative thinking about the design of social mechanisms for the promotion of women. It offers a framework for expanding the institutional imagination in order to recalibrate welfare state reforms to promote women. In particular, we advocate the creative use of legal tools and doctrine to dismantle existing dichotomies between private and public, understand the various goals different mechanisms can serve and reassemble them to promote different mixes of normative goals. We propose doing so by looking simultaneously at two fields of redistribution: welfare state benefits and services on the one hand and income taxation on the other. These two fields serve similar goals and accordingly, we argue, should be analyzed in light of the same policy considerations and normative underpinnings. Since the goals of these two fields are comparable, the mechanisms that both fields use should also be compatible.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059946699&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.systematicreview???
SN - 1069-0565
VL - 27
SP - 717
EP - 743
JO - Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy
JF - Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy
IS - 3
ER -