The first two chapters examine the party's policy towards the wage-stop and the poverty trap. Until 1963 the party ignored the wage-stop but from then until 1975 a section of the party campaigned against the regulation expressing moral revulsion and concern about its administration but only rarely opposition to the principle. A Labour government removed the stop when its operation affected only a tiny minority of families. The party was quickly involved in the development of the poverty trap debate being particularly drawn to its disincentive characteristics, but Labour governments, like their Conservative counterparts, soon came to regard the idea as a mere statistical abstraction. After confirming the party's historical ambivalence about Family Allowances the thesis demonstrated that whenever it advocated allowances it did so because it believed the programme would alleviate family poverty rather than augment work incentives. However Labour governments consistently upheld the principle of substitutability, thus conferring de facto support on that less-eligibility dimension of Family Allowances which Macnicol has established informed the coalition government's decision to legislate for the programme in 1945. Despite the party's opposition to Family Income Supplement it became an important element in the Labour government's anti-poverty strategy after the Child Benefits debate in 1976. F.I.S. was criticised because of its contribution to the poverty trap and its potential for assisting in the pauperisation of the low paid, while Child Benefit was supported because it appeared to be a more equitable technique of delivering support to families with dependent children although some in the party were sensitive to the scheme's potential link with improved work incentives. In general, the Labour Party is seen to have failed to develop any coherent and sustained alternative to the ideas and programmes of its political opponents in this critical area of social policy.

The first two chapters examine the party's policy towards the wage-stop and the poverty trap. Until 1963 the party ignored the wage-stop but from then until 1975 a section of the party campaigned against the regulation expressing moral revulsion and concern about its administration but only rarely opposition to the principle. A Labour government removed the stop when its operation affected only a tiny minority of families. The party was quickly involved in the development of the poverty trap debate being particularly drawn to its disincentive characteristics, but Labour governments, like their Conservative counterparts, soon came to regard the idea as a mere statistical abstraction. After confirming the party's historical ambivalence about Family Allowances the thesis demonstrated that whenever it advocated allowances it did so because it believed the programme would alleviate family poverty rather than augment work incentives. However Labour governments consistently upheld the principle of substitutability, thus conferring de facto support on that less-eligibility dimension of Family Allowances which Macnicol has established informed the coalition government's decision to legislate for the programme in 1945. Despite the party's opposition to Family Income Supplement it became an important element in the Labour government's anti-poverty strategy after the Child Benefits debate in 1976. F.I.S. was criticised because of its contribution to the poverty trap and its potential for assisting in the pauperisation of the low paid, while Child Benefit was supported because it appeared to be a more equitable technique of delivering support to families with dependent children although some in the party were sensitive to the scheme's potential link with improved work incentives. In general, the Labour Party is seen to have failed to develop any coherent and sustained alternative to the ideas and programmes of its political opponents in this critical area of social policy.

Models of public family support by cash benefits. Comparative study of models in the Czech Republic, Finland and United Kingdom This thesis is a comparative study of different models of welfare available for the family unit in the Czech Republic, Finland and in the United Kingdom. It considers many different aspects, and in the first two chapters looks at what characterizes a family, the social strcutures that influenced the formation of the family unit, and existing European principles which formed the basis upon which family assistance was modeled. These principles are divided into solidarity, citizenship, corporate, and liberal. The ensuing chapters discuss family politics within the individual states. Chapters are divided into parts such as historic, present and organization of public family policy. Public welfare in the Czech Republic focuses on low-income households and distributing income assistance from public funds. In Finland family welfare is focused mainly on ensuring the healthy development development of children, which is made possible through financial assistance, family leave and programs offering help for families. In Great Britain, public policy is geared towards relief for the poor, which occurs through tested financial support for the family unit. The practical section of the thesis...

This thesis is focused on the analysis of state social support benefits in various districts of the Czech Republic during the period 2006-2014. During this time many legislative changes took place. The main objective of this work is to evaluate these changes in terms of their impact on costs of state social support benefits and find the impact of unemployment on the state social support benefits. The first part of the thesis focuses on the definition of theoretical terms while the second part is dedicated to data analysis.

This thesis aims to analyze the development, its deteminants, instruments and objectives of family policy in the Czech Republic and Norway, focusing on maternity and parental leave. With respect to the different attitude of the two policies, support for families with children is compared on several theoretical levels and also demonstrates the use of supporting families in practice. It was found out, that Norway provides greater support to the ratio of expenditure to GDP, as well has a more appropriate measures for families in the context of harmonization of work and family life. In addition to the comparison between these two systems of family policy the thesis also provides suggestions for improvement using the Norwegian model.