T. Burchardt, F. Steele, E. Grundy, E. Karagiannaki, J. Kuha, I. Moustaki, C. Skinner, Nina Zhang, Siliang Zhang
Families extend well beyond households. In particular, connections between parents and their adult offspring are often close and sustained, and transfers may include financial assistance, practical support, or both, provided by either generation to the other. Yet this major engine of welfare production, distribution, and redistribution has only recently become the focus of research. Who are the beneficiaries and to what extent are the patterns of exchange socially stratified? This article discusses findings from a programme of research analysing data from two nationally representative longitudinal studies, the British Household Panel Study and its successor Understanding Society, which record help given by, and received by, respondents through exchanges with their non-coresident parents and offspring in the UK. Some families exhibit a high tendency to provide mutual support between generations; these tendencies persist over time. Financial and practical support are generally complementary rather than substitutes. Longer travel time between parents and their offspring makes the provision of practical help less likely, whilst social class, social mobility, and ethnicity exhibit complex patterns of association with intergenerational exchanges. The resulting conclusion is that exchanges within families are an important complement to formal welfare institutions in the UK and that social policies should be designed to work with the grain of existing patterns of exchange, enabling family members to continue to provide help to one another, but ensuring that those who are less well supported by intergenerational assistance can access effective social protection. JEL Codes: D15, I3
{"title":"Welfare within Families beyond Households: Intergenerational Exchanges of Practical and Financial Support in the UK","authors":"T. Burchardt, F. Steele, E. Grundy, E. Karagiannaki, J. Kuha, I. Moustaki, C. Skinner, Nina Zhang, Siliang Zhang","doi":"10.31389/lseppr.41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/lseppr.41","url":null,"abstract":"Families extend well beyond households. In particular, connections between parents and their adult offspring are often close and sustained, and transfers may include financial assistance, practical support, or both, provided by either generation to the other. Yet this major engine of welfare production, distribution, and redistribution has only recently become the focus of research. Who are the beneficiaries and to what extent are the patterns of exchange socially stratified? This article discusses findings from a programme of research analysing data from two nationally representative longitudinal studies, the British Household Panel Study and its successor Understanding Society, which record help given by, and received by, respondents through exchanges with their non-coresident parents and offspring in the UK. Some families exhibit a high tendency to provide mutual support between generations; these tendencies persist over time. Financial and practical support are generally complementary rather than substitutes. Longer travel time between parents and their offspring makes the provision of practical help less likely, whilst social class, social mobility, and ethnicity exhibit complex patterns of association with intergenerational exchanges. The resulting conclusion is that exchanges within families are an important complement to formal welfare institutions in the UK and that social policies should be designed to work with the grain of existing patterns of exchange, enabling family members to continue to provide help to one another, but ensuring that those who are less well supported by intergenerational assistance can access effective social protection. JEL Codes: D15, I3","PeriodicalId":93332,"journal":{"name":"LSE public policy review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46155734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper outlines how norms of reciprocity play a role in building strong and effective states. This considers the state as a natural extension of norms that have evolved in families and communities. It surveys the main ideas in a range of different branches of the social sciences and discusses how they apply in two concrete policy settings: collection of taxes and the design of social security. It emphasises the value of considering policy reforms in terms of an evolving reciprocal social contract between the state and the citizen.
{"title":"Reciprocity and the State","authors":"Timothy Besley","doi":"10.31389/lseppr.39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/lseppr.39","url":null,"abstract":"This paper outlines how norms of reciprocity play a role in building strong and effective states. This considers the state as a natural extension of norms that have evolved in families and communities. It surveys the main ideas in a range of different branches of the social sciences and discusses how they apply in two concrete policy settings: collection of taxes and the design of social security. It emphasises the value of considering policy reforms in terms of an evolving reciprocal social contract between the state and the citizen.","PeriodicalId":93332,"journal":{"name":"LSE public policy review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47308087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article makes the case that, as an open, ongoing defined benefit (DB) pension scheme, the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) once provided a model of reciprocity between generations but no longer does. It begins with an account of the defined contribution (DC) scheme which preceded USS and its investment risk and relatively low pension income that USS was created to rectify. It shows how the funding, investment, and valuation of USS during its first two decades provided a simple and sustainable model of reciprocity, involving the pooling among generations of the investment risk of growth assets. USS’s subsequent shift, however, out of growth assets and into bonds, and the rise in contributions to pay for this shift, have led to an unfair imposition of the cost of securing past pension promises upon current and future generations. This has occurred even though such a shift has been advocated on grounds of intergenerational fairness. A closure of DB and a move back to 100% DC would exacerbate the inequality between generations. JEL codes: D63, G22, J14, J32
{"title":"Does the Universities Superannuation Scheme Provide a Model of Reciprocity Between Generations?","authors":"M. Otsuka","doi":"10.31389/lseppr.42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/lseppr.42","url":null,"abstract":"This article makes the case that, as an open, ongoing defined benefit (DB) pension scheme, the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) once provided a model of reciprocity between generations but no longer does. It begins with an account of the defined contribution (DC) scheme which preceded USS and its investment risk and relatively low pension income that USS was created to rectify. It shows how the funding, investment, and valuation of USS during its first two decades provided a simple and sustainable model of reciprocity, involving the pooling among generations of the investment risk of growth assets. USS’s subsequent shift, however, out of growth assets and into bonds, and the rise in contributions to pay for this shift, have led to an unfair imposition of the cost of securing past pension promises upon current and future generations. This has occurred even though such a shift has been advocated on grounds of intergenerational fairness. A closure of DB and a move back to 100% DC would exacerbate the inequality between generations. JEL codes: D63, G22, J14, J32","PeriodicalId":93332,"journal":{"name":"LSE public policy review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43836018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper reviews the evolutionary literature on cooperation and the mechanisms proposed to explain the differences we see in the scale, breadth, and intensity of cooperation across societies, over history, and among behavioural domains. The most well-studied mechanisms that help societies sustain cooperation include kinship, reciprocity, reputation, signalling, norms, informal and formal institutions, and the competition between stable equilibria sustained by these mechanisms. I apply each of these mechanisms to the problem of reciprocity across the lifecycle. I then discuss how these same ties also tear us apart and what policies might help tie us back together. JEL Codes: A12, A13, C71, J14, J18, Z1
{"title":"The Ties that Bind Us","authors":"Michael Muthukrishna","doi":"10.31389/lseppr.35","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/lseppr.35","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reviews the evolutionary literature on cooperation and the mechanisms proposed to explain the differences we see in the scale, breadth, and intensity of cooperation across societies, over history, and among behavioural domains. The most well-studied mechanisms that help societies sustain cooperation include kinship, reciprocity, reputation, signalling, norms, informal and formal institutions, and the competition between stable equilibria sustained by these mechanisms. I apply each of these mechanisms to the problem of reciprocity across the lifecycle. I then discuss how these same ties also tear us apart and what policies might help tie us back together. JEL Codes: A12, A13, C71, J14, J18, Z1","PeriodicalId":93332,"journal":{"name":"LSE public policy review","volume":"26 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41298190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper explores the nature of reciprocity between workers and pensioners, starting from the observation that what pensioners consume has mostly to be produced by younger workers, and therefore reciprocity in some form is inherent. The opening section argues that a worker can try to arrange consumption in retirement by (a) storing current production or (b) building claims on future production. However, storing current production (the squirrels model) does not work well, so that the main vehicle is building claims on future production. There are two approaches to doing so – through promises (which lie at the core of Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) plans), or by accumulating financial assets which can be exchanged for goods and services (the basis of funded plans). The second part of the paper establishes that a central element in assessing pension arrangements is the extent to which investment is in productive assets. The third part considers the durability of different pension regimes. The paper’s central conclusions are (a) that reciprocity is inherent in pension plans, (b) that the specifics of pension design are in many ways secondary, and (c) that what really matters are economic growth (increasing what is available to share between workers and pensioners) and good government (which will manage PAYG pensions responsibly and/or sustain the economic stability and regulatory capacity that underpin funded pensions). JEL codes: D63, E21, E22, E24, J14, J18
{"title":"Pension Design and the Failed Economics of Squirrels","authors":"N. Barr","doi":"10.31389/lseppr.40","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/lseppr.40","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the nature of reciprocity between workers and pensioners, starting from the observation that what pensioners consume has mostly to be produced by younger workers, and therefore reciprocity in some form is inherent. The opening section argues that a worker can try to arrange consumption in retirement by (a) storing current production or (b) building claims on future production. However, storing current production (the squirrels model) does not work well, so that the main vehicle is building claims on future production. There are two approaches to doing so – through promises (which lie at the core of Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) plans), or by accumulating financial assets which can be exchanged for goods and services (the basis of funded plans). The second part of the paper establishes that a central element in assessing pension arrangements is the extent to which investment is in productive assets. The third part considers the durability of different pension regimes. The paper’s central conclusions are (a) that reciprocity is inherent in pension plans, (b) that the specifics of pension design are in many ways secondary, and (c) that what really matters are economic growth (increasing what is available to share between workers and pensioners) and good government (which will manage PAYG pensions responsibly and/or sustain the economic stability and regulatory capacity that underpin funded pensions). JEL codes: D63, E21, E22, E24, J14, J18","PeriodicalId":93332,"journal":{"name":"LSE public policy review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41626639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, I contend that the behavioural affects that tend to be labelled as errors by most behavioural economists, and as such have served as the justification for a paternalistic direction in behavioural public policy (i.e., policy intervention that aims to protect people from imposing harms on themselves), are in an ecological sense not errors at all. While acknowledging that modern societies are very different from the types of societies in which these affects evolved, I argue that we still cannot conclude that attempts to modify people’s choices in accordance with these so-called errors will improve the lives of those targeted for behaviour change, particularly given the varied and multifarious private objectives and desires that people pursue. Where people are imposing no substantive harms on others, I maintain that policy makers should restrict themselves to protecting and fostering the fundamental motivational force of reciprocity, which serves to benefit the group (which could be the whole society) and, by extension, most of the people who comprise the group, irrespective of their own personal desires in life. However, when one party to any particular exchange actively uses the behavioural affects to benefit themselves and imposes harms on the other party to the exchange, the concept of a free and fair reciprocal exchange has been violated. In these circumstances, there is an intellectual justification to introduce behavioural-informed regulations—a form of negative reciprocity—against activities that impose unacceptable harms on others. My arguments thus call for behavioural public policy to preserve individual autonomy within an overarching policy framework that nurtures reciprocity whilst at the same time regulates against behavioural-informed practices that impose substantive harms on others, rather than focusing on reducing the harms that people supposedly impose on themselves. This would be a major switch in emphasis for one of the most important developments in public policy in modern times. JEL Codes: D91, Z18
{"title":"A Little Give and Take","authors":"A. Oliver","doi":"10.31389/lseppr.36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/lseppr.36","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I contend that the behavioural affects that tend to be labelled as errors by most behavioural economists, and as such have served as the justification for a paternalistic direction in behavioural public policy (i.e., policy intervention that aims to protect people from imposing harms on themselves), are in an ecological sense not errors at all. While acknowledging that modern societies are very different from the types of societies in which these affects evolved, I argue that we still cannot conclude that attempts to modify people’s choices in accordance with these so-called errors will improve the lives of those targeted for behaviour change, particularly given the varied and multifarious private objectives and desires that people pursue. Where people are imposing no substantive harms on others, I maintain that policy makers should restrict themselves to protecting and fostering the fundamental motivational force of reciprocity, which serves to benefit the group (which could be the whole society) and, by extension, most of the people who comprise the group, irrespective of their own personal desires in life. However, when one party to any particular exchange actively uses the behavioural affects to benefit themselves and imposes harms on the other party to the exchange, the concept of a free and fair reciprocal exchange has been violated. In these circumstances, there is an intellectual justification to introduce behavioural-informed regulations—a form of negative reciprocity—against activities that impose unacceptable harms on others. My arguments thus call for behavioural public policy to preserve individual autonomy within an overarching policy framework that nurtures reciprocity whilst at the same time regulates against behavioural-informed practices that impose substantive harms on others, rather than focusing on reducing the harms that people supposedly impose on themselves. This would be a major switch in emphasis for one of the most important developments in public policy in modern times. JEL Codes: D91, Z18","PeriodicalId":93332,"journal":{"name":"LSE public policy review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41944211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pandemic-motivated lockdowns can expose firms to a vicious cycle: they cannot borrow enough to keep paying wages and are forced to dismiss workers; the dismissal of workers in turn reduces future productivity, sales, and profits; and those bleak prospects are precisely what keeps firms from being able to borrow in the first place. To prevent this cycle, a robust policy intervention is called for. In response to COVID-19, debt finance —including subsidized credit programs, debt relief and credit guarantees— has accounted for a sizeable share of the relief measures aimed at firms. Preliminary macro evidence suggests that these programmes are having an impact: the size of liquidity support policies is positively correlated with the extent of credit expansion, firm value, employment and GDP. Micro-economic data for a number of countries points in the same direction: financial support programs for firms can be effective at preventing job losses during and after a pandemic.
{"title":"Credit, Employment, and the COVID Crisis","authors":"L. Céspedes, Roberto Chang, A. Velasco","doi":"10.31389/LSEPPR.28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/LSEPPR.28","url":null,"abstract":"Pandemic-motivated lockdowns can expose firms to a vicious cycle: they cannot borrow enough to keep paying wages and are forced to dismiss workers; the dismissal of workers in turn reduces future productivity, sales, and profits; and those bleak prospects are precisely what keeps firms from being able to borrow in the first place. To prevent this cycle, a robust policy intervention is called for. In response to COVID-19, debt finance —including subsidized credit programs, debt relief and credit guarantees— has accounted for a sizeable share of the relief measures aimed at firms. Preliminary macro evidence suggests that these programmes are having an impact: the size of liquidity support policies is positively correlated with the extent of credit expansion, firm value, employment and GDP. Micro-economic data for a number of countries points in the same direction: financial support programs for firms can be effective at preventing job losses during and after a pandemic.","PeriodicalId":93332,"journal":{"name":"LSE public policy review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42725261","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How do social norms and legal requirements combine to shape collective behaviour? A multi-wave ten-city panel study set during the first UK lockdown finds that compliance was a powerful in-group signalling device, driven by the expressive and coordinating power of formal and informal rules. COVID-19 pandemic laws allowed the Government to operate as an expressive agent, telling people what needed to be done and why. Acting upon mutual expectations for the common good then helped people to coordinate against the virus with a sense of a shared fate and identity. Widespread collective compliance allowed the police to continue to privilege engagement, explanation and encouragement over heavy-handed enforcement tactics that damage their popular legitimacy.
{"title":"Us and Them: On the Motivational Force of Formal and Informal Lockdown Rules","authors":"Jonathan Jackson, B. Bradford","doi":"10.31389/LSEPPR.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/LSEPPR.24","url":null,"abstract":"How do social norms and legal requirements combine to shape collective behaviour? A multi-wave ten-city panel study set during the first UK lockdown finds that compliance was a powerful in-group signalling device, driven by the expressive and coordinating power of formal and informal rules. COVID-19 pandemic laws allowed the Government to operate as an expressive agent, telling people what needed to be done and why. Acting upon mutual expectations for the common good then helped people to coordinate against the virus with a sense of a shared fate and identity. Widespread collective compliance allowed the police to continue to privilege engagement, explanation and encouragement over heavy-handed enforcement tactics that damage their popular legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":93332,"journal":{"name":"LSE public policy review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45077032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ethnic minorities have been particularly hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, in terms of both mortality risks and economic impacts. This has been widely recognised in the UK and elsewhere, and there has been extensive analysis of mortality risks and a burgeoning number of reports reflecting on the wider inequalities associated with them. Yet, despite occupation being flagged as a key differentiator in the experience of ethnic minority groups, there has been little systematic investigation of how far the occupations of both immigrants and British-born ethnic minorities are linked to the negative consequences of the pandemic. In addition, most analysis has focused on the consequences of lockdowns and mortality risks for individuals, rather than considering the implications for the wider household and family. In this paper, I argue that, while not the only factors shaping vulnerability to COVID-19, we can shed further light on ethnic inequalities in the experience of COVID-19 if we pay greater attention to employment patterns and occupational distributions across ethnic groups and within families. It is also relevant to ascertain the extent to which these patterns do or do not dissipate across generations to identify enduring cleavages within the population and the longer, as well as the shorter, term implications of the pandemic for ethnic inequalities.
{"title":"COVID-19 and Ethnic Inequalities in England","authors":"L. Platt","doi":"10.31389/LSEPPR.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/LSEPPR.33","url":null,"abstract":"Ethnic minorities have been particularly hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, in terms of both mortality risks and economic impacts. This has been widely recognised in the UK and elsewhere, and there has been extensive analysis of mortality risks and a burgeoning number of reports reflecting on the wider inequalities associated with them. Yet, despite occupation being flagged as a key differentiator in the experience of ethnic minority groups, there has been little systematic investigation of how far the occupations of both immigrants and British-born ethnic minorities are linked to the negative consequences of the pandemic. In addition, most analysis has focused on the consequences of lockdowns and mortality risks for individuals, rather than considering the implications for the wider household and family. In this paper, I argue that, while not the only factors shaping vulnerability to COVID-19, we can shed further light on ethnic inequalities in the experience of COVID-19 if we pay greater attention to employment patterns and occupational distributions across ethnic groups and within families. It is also relevant to ascertain the extent to which these patterns do or do not dissipate across generations to identify enduring cleavages within the population and the longer, as well as the shorter, term implications of the pandemic for ethnic inequalities.","PeriodicalId":93332,"journal":{"name":"LSE public policy review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49497837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought with it a debate around which skills will be the most valuable in its aftermath. This study discusses the relevance of social skills in this debate and presents new evidence that shows its necessity. Specifically, we focus on knowledge workers and highlight that the importance of social skills was increasing pre-COVID-19 for these workers and that this importance has increased further during the pandemic, particularly for those in management roles. This study has also emphasised that we are at the beginning of the learning curve in understanding how social skills can be taught effectively to adults, and in particular knowledge workers. Establishing this evidence base is particularly important as governments around the world reconsider their skills agenda as a way to build up their economies post COVID-19.
{"title":"The Accelerated Value of Social Skills in Knowledge Work and the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"C. Josten, Grace Lordan","doi":"10.31389/LSEPPR.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/LSEPPR.31","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has brought with it a debate around which skills will be the most valuable in its aftermath. This study discusses the relevance of social skills in this debate and presents new evidence that shows its necessity. Specifically, we focus on knowledge workers and highlight that the importance of social skills was increasing pre-COVID-19 for these workers and that this importance has increased further during the pandemic, particularly for those in management roles. This study has also emphasised that we are at the beginning of the learning curve in understanding how social skills can be taught effectively to adults, and in particular knowledge workers. Establishing this evidence base is particularly important as governments around the world reconsider their skills agenda as a way to build up their economies post COVID-19.","PeriodicalId":93332,"journal":{"name":"LSE public policy review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45566770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：