The Welfare State and Its Critics · 福利国家及其批评者
Growth first, benefits after
- Postwar economic growth supported an increase in welfare benefits; however, subsequent economic stagnation led to criticism and limitation of the welfare state.
- The order is causal: growth supported the benefits, so the benefits rested on the growth continuing.
- However marks the turn, and the CED puts both halves in one sentence so neither can be read alone.
先有增长,后有福利
- 战后的经济增长支撑了福利待遇的增加;然而,随后的经济停滞导致了对福利国家的批评与限制。
- 顺序是因果性的:增长支撑了这些福利,因此福利依赖于增长的持续。
- 然而标示出转折,而 CED 把两半写在一句话里,使任何一半都无法被单独阅读。
The CED's causal order is that... · CED的因果顺序是……
So the benefits rested on the growth continuing. · 因此福利依赖于增长的持续。
The third shift in liberalism's position
- 6.9: liberalism shifted from laissez-faire to interventionist policies in response to industrialisation.
- 8.11: all three ideologies enlarged the state, differing over why it might command.
- 9.6: stagnation produces criticism and limitation — the argument turns again, and the CED records the turn without taking a side.
自由主义立场的第三次转变
- 6.9:自由主义为回应工业化,从自由放任转向干预主义政策。
- 8.11:三种意识形态都扩大了国家,分歧在于它为何可以命令。
- 9.6:停滞产生了批评与限制——论争再次转向,而 CED 记录这一转向,却不选边。
'Criticism and limitation of the welfare state' means it was... · '福利国家的批评与限制'意味着它是……
The alternative reading is simply false. · 另一种解读显然是错误的。
'Limitation' is not abolition
- The CED says criticism and limitation of the welfare state, not its end.
- So the accurate claim is that the welfare state was contested and constrained, and survived in constrained form.
- That precision matters because the alternative reading — that it disappeared — is simply false.
"限制"不是废除
- CED 说的是对福利国家的批评与限制,而不是它的终结。
- 因此准确的主张是:福利国家受到争议与约束,并以受约束的形态存续下来。
- 这种精确很重要,因为另一种读法——它消失了——根本不成立。
The growth phase, the stagnation phase, or the accurate verdict? · 增长阶段、停滞阶段还是准确的结论？
Sort each statement about the welfare state. · 按CED的记录位置对每个关于福利国家的陈述进行分类。
Put the three turns in liberalism's position in order. · 将自由主义的三次转向按顺序排列。
6.9, then 8.11's enlarged state, then 9.6. · 6.9，然后是8.11中扩大的国家，最后是9.6。
'Limitation' is not abolition. The CED says stagnation led to criticism and limitation of the welfare state — so the accurate claim is that it was contested and constrained and survived in constrained form, not that it ended.
"限制"不是废除。CED 说停滞导致了对福利国家的批评与限制——因此准确的主张是:它受到争议与约束,并以受约束的形态存续下来,而不是它终结了。
Select all · 所有 the state-based developments in play in this period. · 选择此期间发生的所有基于国家的变革。
Laissez-faire is what the state-based model replaced. · 自由放任是被基于国家的模式所取代的对象。
State-based development and its responses
- The objective's phrase is state-based economic developments... and the responses to these developments.
- State-based development: the welfare state itself, and in the east 9.4's central planning.
- Responses: criticism and limitation in the west, and 9.7's failed reform in the east.
国家主导的发展与对它的回应
- 这一目标的措辞是国家主导的经济发展……以及对这些发展的回应。
- 国家主导的发展:福利国家本身,以及东方 9.4 中的中央计划。
- 回应:西方的批评与限制,以及东方 9.7 中失败的改革。
Most answers leave out the third sentence: what . · 大多数答案遗漏了第三句话：什么。
State the growth half, the criticism half, and then what remained. · 陈述增长的一半、批评的一半以及剩余部分。
Writing a two-part claim
- The CED's whole subtopic is one sentence with a however in it, so mirror that structure.
- State the growth-and-benefits half, then the stagnation-and-criticism half, then say what survived.
- Three sentences, and the third is the one most answers leave out.
书写一项两部分的主张
- CED 的整个小节就是一句带有然而的话,因此照着这个结构来写。
- 先陈述增长与福利那一半,再陈述停滞与批评那一半,然后说出什么存续了下来。
- 三句话,而第三句正是大多数答案漏掉的那一句。
A benefit funded out of growth is a promise about the future. While the future keeps arriving as expected, nobody asks how it is paid for. When it stops arriving, the question is asked all at once, and it sounds like an accusation.
一项以增长为财源的福利,是一个关于未来的承诺。只要未来一如预期地到来,就没有人追问它靠什么支付。当未来不再如期到来时,这个问题会被一下子提出来,而它听起来像一项指控。
Postwar economic growth supported an increase in welfare benefits; however, subsequent economic stagnation led to criticism and limitation of the welfare state. The benefits rested on growth continuing; limitation is not abolition, so the welfare state was contested and constrained rather than ended — the third turn in an argument that runs from 6.9's shift from laissez-faire to intervention through 8.11's enlarged state.
战后的经济增长支撑了福利待遇的增加;然而,随后的经济停滞导致了对福利国家的批评与限制。这些福利依赖于增长的持续;限制不是废除,因此福利国家是受到争议与约束,而不是终结——这是一场论争的第三次转向,这场论争从6.9 中自由放任转向干预,经由8.11 中被扩大的国家一路走来。