Bart Meuleman, Arno Van Hootegem, Federica Rossetti, Koen Abts
This study examines public attitudes towards two types of ALMPs: enabling activation, which prioritises training, skill formation, and human capital improvement; and demanding activation, which involves leading people towards employment through sanctions and benefit cuts. While previous research has predominantly focused on demanding activation, this study is the first to compare public support for the two distinct faces of activation. Analysing data from the 2020 Belgian National Elections Study, we examine the role of self‐interest, political ideology, social justice preferences, and stereotypical images towards the unemployed in explaining both types of activation attitudes. We find that attitudes towards enabling and demanding activation policies are clearly distinct in their measurement and driving forces. While the enabling type appeals especially to the principle of equality and positive attitudes towards the unemployed, support for demanding ALMPs is based on the principle of equity and stereotypical views about the jobless.
{"title":"Two faces of activation attitudes. Explaining citizens' diverging views on demanding versus enabling activation policies","authors":"Bart Meuleman, Arno Van Hootegem, Federica Rossetti, Koen Abts","doi":"10.1111/spol.13055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13055","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines public attitudes towards two types of ALMPs: enabling activation, which prioritises training, skill formation, and human capital improvement; and demanding activation, which involves leading people towards employment through sanctions and benefit cuts. While previous research has predominantly focused on demanding activation, this study is the first to compare public support for the two distinct faces of activation. Analysing data from the 2020 Belgian National Elections Study, we examine the role of self‐interest, political ideology, social justice preferences, and stereotypical images towards the unemployed in explaining both types of activation attitudes. We find that attitudes towards enabling and demanding activation policies are clearly distinct in their measurement and driving forces. While the enabling type appeals especially to the principle of equality and positive attitudes towards the unemployed, support for demanding ALMPs is based on the principle of equity and stereotypical views about the jobless.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141608906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The individual placement and support (IPS) model is an evidence‐based practice proven effective in aiding individuals with mental disorders to achieve and maintain competitive employment. This study examines how policy and structural factors are perceived to influence the model's sustainment as routine practice after a national development project in Finland. We aim to identify critical dimensions related to decision‐making at the national, regional, and local organisational levels. We used a qualitative single‐case approach, analysing 21 stakeholder interviews and nine administrative documents. We conducted abductive thematic analyses. We report the results in compliance with the COREQ guideline. Our analysis identified three main external contextual influences affecting service sustainment: (1) System‐Level Planning—the coherence of formulation and execution of facilitative strategies across different administrative levels; (2) Political Decision Making—the recognition of inception points of policy change and the ability to set the IPS model on a broader policy agenda; and (3) Stakeholder Engagement and Collaboration—the need for mutual goals and collaborative platforms. Strategic planning, governance decisions, and stakeholder involvement affect local‐level decisions on the IPS model's sustained implementation. This research introduces the concept of ‘Decision‐Chain Integrity’, highlighting the alignment of strategies and their implementation across different levels of administration as a pivotal factor in producing sustained change in the service system.
{"title":"Decision‐chain integrity and sustainment of the individual placement and support model: An embedded single case study in Finland","authors":"Jaakko Harkko, Hilla Nordquist, Anne Kouvonen","doi":"10.1111/spol.13056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13056","url":null,"abstract":"The individual placement and support (IPS) model is an evidence‐based practice proven effective in aiding individuals with mental disorders to achieve and maintain competitive employment. This study examines how policy and structural factors are perceived to influence the model's sustainment as routine practice after a national development project in Finland. We aim to identify critical dimensions related to decision‐making at the national, regional, and local organisational levels. We used a qualitative single‐case approach, analysing 21 stakeholder interviews and nine administrative documents. We conducted abductive thematic analyses. We report the results in compliance with the COREQ guideline. Our analysis identified three main external contextual influences affecting service sustainment: (1) System‐Level Planning—the coherence of formulation and execution of facilitative strategies across different administrative levels; (2) Political Decision Making—the recognition of inception points of policy change and the ability to set the IPS model on a broader policy agenda; and (3) Stakeholder Engagement and Collaboration—the need for mutual goals and collaborative platforms. Strategic planning, governance decisions, and stakeholder involvement affect local‐level decisions on the IPS model's sustained implementation. This research introduces the concept of ‘Decision‐Chain Integrity’, highlighting the alignment of strategies and their implementation across different levels of administration as a pivotal factor in producing sustained change in the service system.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141585996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Innovation for the masses: How to share the benefits of the high‐tech economy. By NeilLee, Oakland, CA: University of California Press. 2024. pp. 248. £23.00/$26.95 (hardcover). ISBN: 9780520394889","authors":"Matthias Haslberger","doi":"10.1111/spol.13062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13062","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"72 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141575012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This systematic literature review (SLR) explores the impact of digital technologies on welfare states and bureaucracies, analyzing the evolving dynamics between the state and citizens. The integration of digital technologies reshapes traditional interactions, granting citizens new levels of autonomy and responsibility. Service delivery evolves from conventional bureaucracies to dynamic, data‐driven systems. Employing the PRISMA methodology, the review covers articles from 2017 to 2024, synthesizing insights from 37 selected articles. Key themes, challenges, and opportunities associated with digital transformation in the welfare state are identified. The study offers valuable insights for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners navigating the complex intersection of technology and welfare provision. It underscores the need for a balanced approach to welfare transformation, addressing both the benefits of digitalization and potential challenges such as exclusion, citizen profiling, and other ethical concerns.
{"title":"Paradigm shift: Exploring the impact of digital technologies on the welfare state through a systematic literature review","authors":"Sofia Alexopoulou","doi":"10.1111/spol.13054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13054","url":null,"abstract":"This systematic literature review (SLR) explores the impact of digital technologies on welfare states and bureaucracies, analyzing the evolving dynamics between the state and citizens. The integration of digital technologies reshapes traditional interactions, granting citizens new levels of autonomy and responsibility. Service delivery evolves from conventional bureaucracies to dynamic, data‐driven systems. Employing the PRISMA methodology, the review covers articles from 2017 to 2024, synthesizing insights from 37 selected articles. Key themes, challenges, and opportunities associated with digital transformation in the welfare state are identified. The study offers valuable insights for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners navigating the complex intersection of technology and welfare provision. It underscores the need for a balanced approach to welfare transformation, addressing both the benefits of digitalization and potential challenges such as exclusion, citizen profiling, and other ethical concerns.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141547196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ellen Stewart, Rosemary Cresswell, Christian Möller
Whether charitable fundraising might play a part in funding Britain's ostensibly tax‐funded NHS has been a longstanding dilemma, which until recently has received only occasional scholarly attention. In 1946, Aneurin Bevan argued that one of the main goals of the reformed health care system was to liberate health care from the ‘caprice of private charity’. Seven decades later, NHS Charities Together's Urgent Covid‐19 Appeal became a powerful societal rallying cry in the health emergency of the pandemic and raised £150 million in the process. This paper draws together findings from new archival research, a witness seminar with key actors in the NHS charity sector, and qualitative research based on interviews with NHS charity staff and trustees (N = 13), all conducted between 2021 and 2023. We investigate the way in which national appeals have been proposed, debated and implemented at different times in the NHS's history. We trace the recurrence of conflicting ideas about the acceptability of national fundraising for the NHS, about whether public loyalties are to their local services or the national ‘brand’ and about the introduction of national appeals into a complex ecology of local NHS charities. The history of charitable fundraising for the NHS is, we argue, neither a simple story of spontaneous public generosity, nor often of formal policy reform, but is an artefact of more complex dynamics between a changing cast of local and national actors over the last 75 years.
{"title":"National charitable fundraising for the NHS, 1948–2023","authors":"Ellen Stewart, Rosemary Cresswell, Christian Möller","doi":"10.1111/spol.13049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13049","url":null,"abstract":"Whether charitable fundraising might play a part in funding Britain's ostensibly tax‐funded NHS has been a longstanding dilemma, which until recently has received only occasional scholarly attention. In 1946, Aneurin Bevan argued that one of the main goals of the reformed health care system was to liberate health care from the ‘caprice of private charity’. Seven decades later, NHS Charities Together's Urgent Covid‐19 Appeal became a powerful societal rallying cry in the health emergency of the pandemic and raised £150 million in the process. This paper draws together findings from new archival research, a witness seminar with key actors in the NHS charity sector, and qualitative research based on interviews with NHS charity staff and trustees (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 13), all conducted between 2021 and 2023. We investigate the way in which <jats:italic>national</jats:italic> appeals have been proposed, debated and implemented at different times in the NHS's history. We trace the recurrence of conflicting ideas about the acceptability of national fundraising for the NHS, about whether public loyalties are to their local services or the national ‘brand’ and about the introduction of national appeals into a complex ecology of local NHS charities. The history of charitable fundraising for the NHS is, we argue, neither a simple story of spontaneous public generosity, nor often of formal policy reform, but is an artefact of more complex dynamics between a changing cast of local and national actors over the last 75 years.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"116 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141520200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The front‐line of the welfare state is increasingly not a letter, phone call or face‐to‐face visit, but an online user‐interface. This ‘interface first’ bureaucracy is a fundamental reshaping of social security administration, but the design and operation of these interfaces is poorly understood. Drawing on interview data from senior civil servants, welfare benefits advisors and claimants on the UK's flagship Universal Credit working‐age benefit, this paper is a detailed analysis of the role played by interfaces in the modern welfare state. Providing examples from across the Universal Credit system, it sets out a five‐fold typology of user‐interface design elements in the social security context: (i) structuring data input, (ii) interaction architecture, (iii) operative controls, (iv) prompting and priming, and (v) integrations. The paper concludes by considering the implications of an ‘interface first’ welfare bureaucracy for future research.
{"title":"An ‘interface first’ bureaucracy: Interface design, universal credit and the digital welfare state","authors":"Jed Meers, Simon Halliday, Joe Tomlinson","doi":"10.1111/spol.13053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13053","url":null,"abstract":"The front‐line of the welfare state is increasingly not a letter, phone call or face‐to‐face visit, but an online user‐interface. This ‘interface first’ bureaucracy is a fundamental reshaping of social security administration, but the design and operation of these interfaces is poorly understood. Drawing on interview data from senior civil servants, welfare benefits advisors and claimants on the UK's flagship Universal Credit working‐age benefit, this paper is a detailed analysis of the role played by interfaces in the modern welfare state. Providing examples from across the Universal Credit system, it sets out a five‐fold typology of user‐interface design elements in the social security context: (i) structuring data input, (ii) interaction architecture, (iii) operative controls, (iv) prompting and priming, and (v) integrations. The paper concludes by considering the implications of an ‘interface first’ welfare bureaucracy for future research.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141504046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The ongoing cost‐of‐living crisis is causing immense stress and hardship for families, individuals and communities, with increases in utility bills, food prices and transport costs. Actors from civil society, politicians and academics have demonstrated concern as to the effect this is having at local and national levels, specifically the disproportionate impact on already marginalised and vulnerable groups. One demographic particularly affected is higher education students, however, due to the lack of support measures being aimed at this cohort, they are at significant risk of becoming overlooked and forgotten. While recent survey data has acknowledged the negative experiences of this group, there is a lack of understanding of their everyday lived realities. To address this gap, this article draws on empirical research conducted with HE students in the North‐West of England between 2022 and 2023. The study explores the diverse ways in which students navigate the crisis and the impact this has on their health and well‐being. It concludes with a call for urgent action and policy response to elevate unprecedented and devastating student hardship triggered by the cost‐of‐living crisis.
{"title":"‘Money anxiety’: Understanding HE students' experiences of the cost‐of‐living crisis","authors":"Vicki Dabrowski, Natalija Atas, Tracy Ramsey, Natasha Howarth","doi":"10.1111/spol.13048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13048","url":null,"abstract":"The ongoing cost‐of‐living crisis is causing immense stress and hardship for families, individuals and communities, with increases in utility bills, food prices and transport costs. Actors from civil society, politicians and academics have demonstrated concern as to the effect this is having at local and national levels, specifically the disproportionate impact on already marginalised and vulnerable groups. One demographic particularly affected is higher education students, however, due to the lack of support measures being aimed at this cohort, they are at significant risk of becoming overlooked and forgotten. While recent survey data has acknowledged the negative experiences of this group, there is a lack of understanding of their everyday lived realities. To address this gap, this article draws on empirical research conducted with HE students in the North‐West of England between 2022 and 2023. The study explores the diverse ways in which students navigate the crisis and the impact this has on their health and well‐being. It concludes with a call for urgent action and policy response to elevate unprecedented and devastating student hardship triggered by the cost‐of‐living crisis.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141188341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Social Europe, or the social dimension of the European Union (EU), has been receiving increasing attention in academic debates. This special issue introduction discusses Social Europe through the analytical framework of multi‐level governance while asking, perhaps controversially, whether Social Europe has the potential to become a fully‐fledged welfare state. This introduction also summarises the articles included in this special issue which focus on different governance levels, including EU institutions, member states, national parties, economic sectors, workers and the general public. On this basis, the introduction identifies sources of challenges and opportunities for Social Europe from various levels of governance. We conclude that the needs and demands become more diverse when we move from European institutions to the citizens. Notably, obstacles from one governance level often carry over to another governance level. Consequently, it becomes much more difficult to design welfare policies on the EU level that work for everyone. While a more evolved EU‐level welfare state may be possible in the future, substantial obstacles make it difficult to achieve in the short run. Hence, future research should examine the multi‐level structure of Social Europe in more detail to better grasp what Social Europe can and cannot deliver and why. Such research is not only relevant in the European Union but also in other multi‐level governance systems across the world.
{"title":"Towards Social Europe? Obstacles and opportunities in the multi‐level governance of welfare states","authors":"Gianna Maria Eick, Zhen Jie Im, Janine Leschke","doi":"10.1111/spol.13046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13046","url":null,"abstract":"Social Europe, or the social dimension of the European Union (EU), has been receiving increasing attention in academic debates. This special issue introduction discusses Social Europe through the analytical framework of multi‐level governance while asking, perhaps controversially, whether Social Europe has the potential to become a fully‐fledged welfare state. This introduction also summarises the articles included in this special issue which focus on different governance levels, including EU institutions, member states, national parties, economic sectors, workers and the general public. On this basis, the introduction identifies sources of challenges and opportunities for Social Europe from various levels of governance. We conclude that the needs and demands become more diverse when we move from European institutions to the citizens. Notably, obstacles from one governance level often carry over to another governance level. Consequently, it becomes much more difficult to design welfare policies on the EU level that work for everyone. While a more evolved EU‐level welfare state may be possible in the future, substantial obstacles make it difficult to achieve in the short run. Hence, future research should examine the multi‐level structure of Social Europe in more detail to better grasp what Social Europe can and cannot deliver and why. Such research is not only relevant in the European Union but also in other multi‐level governance systems across the world.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141170768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：