Cohesion Policy—the European Union's (EU) policy platform for regional and local development—represents a major yet often neglected instance of Social Europe. In this article we inquire into the delivery of Cohesion Policy projects concerned with social policy objectives. Specifically, we ask: how are these projects delivered? Building on the literature of subsidiarisation in social policy, we theorise that the interaction of two processes—vertical subsidiarisation across territorial levels and horizontal subisidiarisation across sectoral levels—generates different spaces of subsidiarity, with major implications for policy outputs and outcomes. Empirically, we explore the emergence of spaces of subsidiarity in over 800 Cohesion Policy projects for quality employment and labour mobility delivered in Italy, Portugal, and Spain, during the 2010s. We show that, despite common rules, the governance framework through which the social agenda of Cohesion Policy is implemented is not a constant but a variable, one that may be leveraged by future research to explain the heterogeneous impact of Cohesion Policy across the EU. Our contribution is relevant to research on Social Europe, research on the territorial dimension of post-industrial welfare systems as well as research on Cohesion Policy.
{"title":"Spaces of subsidiarity: A comparative inquiry into the social agenda of Cohesion Policy","authors":"Steven Ballantyne, Lorenzo Mascioli","doi":"10.1111/spol.13006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13006","url":null,"abstract":"Cohesion Policy—the European Union's (EU) policy platform for regional and local development—represents a major yet often neglected instance of Social Europe. In this article we inquire into the delivery of Cohesion Policy projects concerned with social policy objectives. Specifically, we ask: <i>how are these projects delivered?</i> Building on the literature of subsidiarisation in social policy, we theorise that the interaction of two processes—vertical subsidiarisation across territorial levels and horizontal subisidiarisation across sectoral levels—generates different spaces of subsidiarity, with major implications for policy outputs and outcomes. Empirically, we explore the emergence of spaces of subsidiarity in over 800 Cohesion Policy projects for quality employment and labour mobility delivered in Italy, Portugal, and Spain, during the 2010s. We show that, despite common rules, the governance framework through which the social agenda of Cohesion Policy is implemented is not a constant but a variable, one that may be leveraged by future research to explain the heterogeneous impact of Cohesion Policy across the EU. Our contribution is relevant to research on Social Europe, research on the territorial dimension of post-industrial welfare systems as well as research on Cohesion Policy.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139910898","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 issue of employment is extremely significant, and employment assistance programs work for special social assistance and employment support for the impoverished in China. Are employment assistance programs, particularly those providing job recommendations and free vocational training, effective in promoting employment in China? This study answers this question using a mixed methods approach. Logistic regressions and propensity score matching–difference in differences models using unique data from the “Construction of Social Policy Support System for Urban and Rural Impoverished Families in China” project demonstrates that providing either job recommendations or free vocational training does not significantly promote employment. Qualitative analyses of in-depth interviews show that the ineffectiveness of providing job recommendations and vocational training programs can be attributed to three reasons: (1) lack of coordination among employment assistance providers, (2) mismatch between employment assistance provision and recipients' needs, and (3) employment assistance as subordinates to Dibao and labor market policy. This study has important theoretical and practical implications for research on and improvement of employment assistance.
{"title":"Does employment assistance promote employment of the impoverished in China? Evidence from a mixed methods approach","authors":"Shencheng Wang, Yongzheng Yang, Baochen Liu","doi":"10.1111/spol.13010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13010","url":null,"abstract":"The issue of employment is extremely significant, and employment assistance programs work for special social assistance and employment support for the impoverished in China. Are employment assistance programs, particularly those providing job recommendations and free vocational training, effective in promoting employment in China? This study answers this question using a mixed methods approach. Logistic regressions and propensity score matching–difference in differences models using unique data from the “Construction of Social Policy Support System for Urban and Rural Impoverished Families in China” project demonstrates that providing either job recommendations or free vocational training does not significantly promote employment. Qualitative analyses of in-depth interviews show that the ineffectiveness of providing job recommendations and vocational training programs can be attributed to three reasons: (1) lack of coordination among employment assistance providers, (2) mismatch between employment assistance provision and recipients' needs, and (3) employment assistance as subordinates to <i>Dibao</i> and labor market policy. This study has important theoretical and practical implications for research on and improvement of employment assistance.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139910895","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}
In this article, we analyse how different governments have dealt with situations, labelled as ‘crises’ in the international and national discourses. More specifically, we analyse how the Czech, Hungarian and Slovak governments framed and dealt with their social policies during the 2008 ‘financial crisis’, the 2015 ‘refugee crisis’, and the 2020 ‘Covid crisis’. We argue that sometimes governments and the mass media frame the situation as a crisis, when objectively it would be hard to argue empirically that there really was a crisis. At other times, according to objective criteria, there is ample evidence that there is indeed a crisis, but the government tries to deny it for political reasons. Despite differences in objective conditions and differences in political constellations, none of the policymakers in the three countries took advantage of the windows of opportunity that the alleged crises presented to carry out path-changing social policy? changes. Instead, the changes we rather small and usually only temporary; thus, showing the importance of path dependency even during crisis situations.
{"title":"Crisis? What crisis? Social policy when crises are and are not crises in Czechia, Hungary and Slovakia","authors":"Steven Saxonberg, Tomáš Sirovátka, Eduard Csudai","doi":"10.1111/spol.13004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13004","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we analyse how different governments have dealt with situations, labelled as ‘crises’ in the international and national discourses. More specifically, we analyse how the Czech, Hungarian and Slovak governments framed and dealt with their social policies during the 2008 ‘financial crisis’, the 2015 ‘refugee crisis’, and the 2020 ‘Covid crisis’. We argue that sometimes governments and the mass media frame the situation as a crisis, when objectively it would be hard to argue empirically that there really was a crisis. At other times, according to objective criteria, there is ample evidence that there is indeed a crisis, but the government tries to deny it for political reasons. Despite differences in objective conditions and differences in political constellations, none of the policymakers in the three countries took advantage of the windows of opportunity that the alleged crises presented to carry out path-changing social policy? changes. Instead, the changes we rather small and usually only temporary; thus, showing the importance of path dependency even during crisis situations.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139903355","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}
There have been more-or-less continual suggestions that the UK National Health Service (NHS) has been suffering from one kind of crisis or another since its creation in 1948. If we are to understand the problems the NHS faces, then we need to empirically investigate what kinds of crises it has faced, if such crises have patterns to them, and whether or not they tend to lead to policy change. This article considers NHS crisis in terms of academic accounts of its history, as well in occurrences of the term ‘NHS crisis’ (and its synonyms) in national newspaper headlines from the 1980s up to 2020 through the application of topic modelling. The combination of these two sources of data leads to the construction of a typology of NHS crises. Having constructed this typology, we can then examine the timing and frequency of NHS crises, and consider the relationship between crises and periods of policy change, as well as to the wider economic and social context in which crises occur through the notion of the ‘NHS spatio-temporal fix’.
{"title":"Crisis in the UK National Health Service: What does it mean, and what are the consequences?","authors":"Ian Greener, Martin Powell","doi":"10.1111/spol.13001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13001","url":null,"abstract":"There have been more-or-less continual suggestions that the UK National Health Service (NHS) has been suffering from one kind of crisis or another since its creation in 1948. If we are to understand the problems the NHS faces, then we need to empirically investigate what kinds of crises it has faced, if such crises have patterns to them, and whether or not they tend to lead to policy change. This article considers NHS crisis in terms of academic accounts of its history, as well in occurrences of the term ‘NHS crisis’ (and its synonyms) in national newspaper headlines from the 1980s up to 2020 through the application of topic modelling. The combination of these two sources of data leads to the construction of a typology of NHS crises. Having constructed this typology, we can then examine the timing and frequency of NHS crises, and consider the relationship between crises and periods of policy change, as well as to the wider economic and social context in which crises occur through the notion of the ‘NHS spatio-temporal fix’.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139589045","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 article uses multilevel analysis of 24 European countries to examine the effects of macroeconomic variables (GDP and unemployment) and welfare state interventions (active and passive labour market policies) on job insecurity and job quality in Europe from the mid-1990s until the last 2021 COVID crisis. The paper makes a distinction between the crisis of the welfare state and the reaction of welfare states to crises and connects the job quality literature with that on the transformation of the welfare state. The article introduces several innovations to the literature by looking at the impact of welfare state interventions on multidimensional job quality, distinguishing between different types of active labour market policy spending and considering the generosity of benefits. The findings show that active labour market policies (ALMPs) and passive labour market policies (PLMPs) have a positive effect in reducing job insecurity across skill groups. ALMPs and PLMPs also improved several dimensions of job quality, but mostly among manual/low-skilled workers, while they have a negative effect on work pressure which mostly affects medium- and high-skilled workers. The article concludes by discussing how, due to the reach of ALMP and PLMP interventions, the positive effects of the welfare state on job quality are concentrated among lower-skilled workers, thereby limiting the ambition of contemporary welfare states to generate positive spillover effects on the quality of work for all workers.
{"title":"Quantity over quality? How economic factors and welfare state interventions affected job insecurity and job quality before, during and after the economic crises","authors":"Lorenza Antonucci, Hyojin Seo, Martin Strobl","doi":"10.1111/spol.13003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13003","url":null,"abstract":"This article uses multilevel analysis of 24 European countries to examine the effects of macroeconomic variables (GDP and unemployment) and welfare state interventions (active and passive labour market policies) on job insecurity and job quality in Europe from the mid-1990s until the last 2021 COVID crisis. The paper makes a distinction between the crisis of the welfare state and the reaction of welfare states to crises and connects the job quality literature with that on the transformation of the welfare state. The article introduces several innovations to the literature by looking at the impact of welfare state interventions on multidimensional job quality, distinguishing between different types of active labour market policy spending and considering the generosity of benefits. The findings show that active labour market policies (ALMPs) and passive labour market policies (PLMPs) have a positive effect in reducing job insecurity across skill groups. ALMPs and PLMPs also improved several dimensions of job quality, but mostly among manual/low-skilled workers, while they have a negative effect on work pressure which mostly affects medium- and high-skilled workers. The article concludes by discussing how, due to the reach of ALMP and PLMP interventions, the positive effects of the welfare state on job quality are concentrated among lower-skilled workers, thereby limiting the ambition of contemporary welfare states to generate positive spillover effects on the quality of work for all workers.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"92 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139588946","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}
Welfare state crises have long fascinated researchers. This introduction distills the special issue's insights on this enduring topic. Overall, the articles indicate that future debates surrounding crisis types and responsive policies will remain important. Simple or singular crisis explanations prove elusive. Uncertainty persists regarding whether crises are episodic or constant and occur on macro or micro levels. Diverse welfare regimes further complicate crisis interpretations. Perhaps academic discourse should shift from “crisis” frameworks towards framing pressures as ongoing variations. These encompass struggles over legitimacy, demographic changes, financing dilemmas, and societal battles over resources and options. Specifically, the articles reveal the limitations of sweeping crisis narratives, emphasizing the complex, gradual pressures shaping social policies. Welfare systems balance simultaneous stresses rather than experiencing overarching crises. Even pivotal events rarely trigger seismic shifts, as continuity typically prevails over radical departures. In summary, this special issue provides nuance to welfare state debates by delving into multifaceted, incremental change rather than superficial crisis rhetoric. The articles underscore the diversity of pressures and responses across varied regimes, challenging simplistic crisis notions. This highlights the need for constant welfare state adaptation despite the absence of outright crises.
{"title":"Once again: Are welfare states in crisis?","authors":"Bent Greve","doi":"10.1111/spol.13005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13005","url":null,"abstract":"Welfare state crises have long fascinated researchers. This introduction distills the special issue's insights on this enduring topic. Overall, the articles indicate that future debates surrounding crisis types and responsive policies will remain important. Simple or singular crisis explanations prove elusive. Uncertainty persists regarding whether crises are episodic or constant and occur on macro or micro levels. Diverse welfare regimes further complicate crisis interpretations. Perhaps academic discourse should shift from “crisis” frameworks towards framing pressures as ongoing variations. These encompass struggles over legitimacy, demographic changes, financing dilemmas, and societal battles over resources and options. Specifically, the articles reveal the limitations of sweeping crisis narratives, emphasizing the complex, gradual pressures shaping social policies. Welfare systems balance simultaneous stresses rather than experiencing overarching crises. Even pivotal events rarely trigger seismic shifts, as continuity typically prevails over radical departures. In summary, this special issue provides nuance to welfare state debates by delving into multifaceted, incremental change rather than superficial crisis rhetoric. The articles underscore the diversity of pressures and responses across varied regimes, challenging simplistic crisis notions. This highlights the need for constant welfare state adaptation despite the absence of outright crises.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139516373","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}
Rosalind Edwards, Val Gillies, Hélène Vannier-Ducasse, Sarah Gorin
The article provides a conceptually informed empirical critique of the pursuit of social licence as a warrant for data linkage and predictive analytics in the field of family policy intervention. It draws on research focusing on parental views of digitally-driven family governance in the United Kingdom. We identify the notion of consensus that undergirds the concept of social licence that acts to obscure inequalities and silence conflict, and to reframe digital surveillance and prediction as a moral rather than political issue. Using focus group and individual interview material, we show how parents assert professional or lay experiential knowledges in making judgements about the legitimacy of and trust in operational data technologies, involving struggles between positionings as parents like ‘us’ and ‘other’ parents. We demonstrate how parents have different leverages from these unequal and morally charged social locations. Inevitably, the application of social licence in the domain of digital family policy and intervention is fractured by entrenched social divisions and inequalities.
{"title":"The moral, the political and social licence in digitally-driven family policy and intervention: Parents negotiating experiential knowledge and ‘other’ families","authors":"Rosalind Edwards, Val Gillies, Hélène Vannier-Ducasse, Sarah Gorin","doi":"10.1111/spol.12997","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12997","url":null,"abstract":"The article provides a conceptually informed empirical critique of the pursuit of social licence as a warrant for data linkage and predictive analytics in the field of family policy intervention. It draws on research focusing on parental views of digitally-driven family governance in the United Kingdom. We identify the notion of consensus that undergirds the concept of social licence that acts to obscure inequalities and silence conflict, and to reframe digital surveillance and prediction as a moral rather than political issue. Using focus group and individual interview material, we show how parents assert professional or lay experiential knowledges in making judgements about the legitimacy of and trust in operational data technologies, involving struggles between positionings as parents like ‘us’ and ‘other’ parents. We demonstrate how parents have different leverages from these unequal and morally charged social locations. Inevitably, the application of social licence in the domain of digital family policy and intervention is fractured by entrenched social divisions and inequalities.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139498070","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}
Dave Beck, Remco Peters, Gemma Bridge, Francis Poitier, Ben Pearson
Universal Credit signalled a revolution in the delivery and costs of welfare provisioning. UC aimed to reduce spending on welfare, but in doing so now threatens the stability of a functioning and cohesive society. Over recent years, and most notably during the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become ever clearer that adequate social security is vital to the functioning of society, as well as to the health and well-being of the population. Yet this period has also served to highlight the fragility and insufficiency of welfare in the United Kingdom. This article explores how the current welfare crisis, is associated with UC. In this article, we also consider the uncertainty that UC has created in most recipients. We argue that there are other ways to support the most vulnerable in society, and that we are now at that critical juncture in needing to make significant change. Universal Basic Income (UBI) offers one such alternative by offering stable, individual, non-means tested, and unconditional money transfers, to all citizens. Over the last decade, there have been multiple experiments around the world trialling basic income, each of which has a specific focus, or target population, as different elements of a UBI were scrutinised. In this article, we reflect upon what we consider to be the potential shortcomings of the current welfare system in the United Kingdom as a move away from its origin, arguing that the United Kingdom is now primed for UBI to be considered a fair and legitimate way to provide social security.
{"title":"Modern welfare in the United Kingdom is a universal (dis)credit to Beveridge. Is it time for a basic income?","authors":"Dave Beck, Remco Peters, Gemma Bridge, Francis Poitier, Ben Pearson","doi":"10.1111/spol.13002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13002","url":null,"abstract":"Universal Credit signalled a revolution in the delivery and costs of welfare provisioning. UC aimed to reduce spending on welfare, but in doing so now threatens the stability of a functioning and cohesive society. Over recent years, and most notably during the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become ever clearer that adequate social security is vital to the functioning of society, as well as to the health and well-being of the population. Yet this period has also served to highlight the fragility and insufficiency of welfare in the United Kingdom. This article explores how the current welfare crisis, is associated with UC. In this article, we also consider the uncertainty that UC has created in most recipients. We argue that there are other ways to support the most vulnerable in society, and that we are now at that critical juncture in needing to make significant change. Universal Basic Income (UBI) offers one such alternative by offering stable, individual, non-means tested, and unconditional money transfers, to all citizens. Over the last decade, there have been multiple experiments around the world trialling basic income, each of which has a specific focus, or target population, as different elements of a UBI were scrutinised. In this article, we reflect upon what we consider to be the potential shortcomings of the current welfare system in the United Kingdom as a move away from its origin, arguing that the United Kingdom is now primed for UBI to be considered a fair and legitimate way to provide social security.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139461514","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 crises faced by welfare states have now endured for significantly longer than the counter-period of stability, calm and cooperation between the 1940s and 1970s. Systemic crisis of welfare states tied to the contradictions of capitalism, and the exogenous crises for the welfare state that have afflicted its expansion have, however, been met by faith in its resilience evidenced in its economic functions and popularity. We question the basis for optimism by examining the ‘state of the welfare state’ in the context of the social goals envisaged in the 1940s and the extent to which these are evidenced in contemporary social policy arrangements. We present a case for more ‘pessimism of the intellect’ in assessing welfare futures to better underpin welfare state scholars' tendency towards ‘optimism of the will’.
{"title":"Crises of the welfare state, resilience, and pessimism of the intellect","authors":"Kevin Farnsworth, Zoë Irving","doi":"10.1111/spol.12996","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12996","url":null,"abstract":"The crises faced by welfare states have now endured for significantly longer than the counter-period of stability, calm and cooperation between the 1940s and 1970s. Systemic crisis of welfare states tied to the contradictions of capitalism, and the exogenous crises for the welfare state that have afflicted its expansion have, however, been met by faith in its resilience evidenced in its economic functions and popularity. We question the basis for optimism by examining the ‘state of the welfare state’ in the context of the social goals envisaged in the 1940s and the extent to which these are evidenced in contemporary social policy arrangements. We present a case for more ‘pessimism of the intellect’ in assessing welfare futures to better underpin welfare state scholars' tendency towards ‘optimism of the will’.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139422181","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}
While there have been some studies of counterfactual analysis in history and other academic disciplines, there are very few studies in social policy and health policy. This paper explores a major critical juncture and counterfactual in the creation of the NHS. In particular, it explores the critical juncture of the discussion in the Labour Cabinet involving Bevan's proposal for nationalising the hospitals and Morrison's alternative proposal based on local government, and the counterfactual of Prime Minister Attlee summing up in favour of Morrison. It reviews the literature on the criteria for counterfactuals, and justifies the focus on the Cabinet Discussion, as this was a considered option which, with minimum change, might have led to significantly different outcomes. We consider how such an event could have come about, how credible that alternative was, and what its implications might have been.
{"title":"It's a wonderful NHS? A counterfactual perspective on the creation of the British National Health Service","authors":"Martin Powell, Ian Greener","doi":"10.1111/spol.12999","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12999","url":null,"abstract":"While there have been some studies of counterfactual analysis in history and other academic disciplines, there are very few studies in social policy and health policy. This paper explores a major critical juncture and counterfactual in the creation of the NHS. In particular, it explores the critical juncture of the discussion in the Labour Cabinet involving Bevan's proposal for nationalising the hospitals and Morrison's alternative proposal based on local government, and the counterfactual of Prime Minister Attlee summing up in favour of Morrison. It reviews the literature on the criteria for counterfactuals, and justifies the focus on the Cabinet Discussion, as this was a considered option which, with minimum change, might have led to significantly different outcomes. We consider how such an event could have come about, how credible that alternative was, and what its implications might have been.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139410473","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：