The Social Policy Digest went online in the summer of 2003. This means that the Digest, which used to be printed as part of the Journal of Social Policy, is now only available via the web.

The risk of poverty is very unevenly distributed in society. Some groups – unemployed people, lone parents, large families, people with disabilities, and some ethnic groups – have much higher poverty rates than average. Some events – losing a job, marital breakdown, having children – also put people at high risk of poverty. But being in a high-risk group does not necessarily mean you will be poor, nor does experiencing an event with a high poverty risk attached to it. Some people avoid poverty, despite being in high-risk groups or facing high-risk events. This article focuses on one such group – low-paid workers – and explores whether and how people in low-paid jobs are able to avoid poverty. We consider three main options – own wages and in particular working long hours, living with other people and sharing income, and state transfers through the tax and benefit system – and compare these across different family and household types. The results highlight the importance of household living arrangements in protecting low-waged individuals against poverty.

One frequently used direct measure of deprivation and poverty is the objective relative deprivation index (O-RDindex), developed by Mack and Lansley (1985). One assumption underlying the O-RDindex is that respondents can distinguish between what that they cannot afford and what they do not want. This assumption contradicts the subjective usage of the concept relative deprivation (S-RD), which suggests a connection between economic circumstances, choice of reference group and consumption preferences.

The present analysis supports the S-RD assumptions. People with limited access to economic resources are more likely to say they ‘do not want’ various consumable items. The results indicate a subjective bias that leads to underestimation of the incidence of O-RD among those suffering from the greatest economic hardship. However, it is also concluded that asking people to differentiate between choice and economic constraint improves our measurement of O-RD and decreases the risk that relatively well-off individuals will score high on the O-RDindex due to peculiar prioritising of consumption. Yet it is still the case that the social mechanisms related to S-RD most probably lead to underestimation of O-RD.

This article uses administrative data to explore benefit dynamics for children in Britain's second largest city, Birmingham, over the period January 1998 to June 1999. As the benefits in question (housing benefit and council tax benefit) are means tested, the dynamics are also informative about moves in and out of low income. The article is original in its use of quarterly data to provide a comprehensive picture of benefit dynamics, in treating the child rather than the benefit claimant as the unit of analysis, and also in including ethnic group differences in its analysis of benefit exit and re-entry. It provides a picture of substantial ‘welfare dynamics’: that is, movements in and out of benefit support. Living in a low-income family in receipt of benefit can be seen to be a part, and sometimes a recurring part, of the experience of a large proportion of children. It argues that policy needs to investigate and take account of the impact of insecure income as well as poverty when considering the welfare of children.

This article argues that our understanding of income and poverty dynamics benefits from taking a life-cycle perspective. A person's age and family circumstances – the factors that shape their life cycle – affect the likelihood of experiencing key life events, such as partnership formation, having children, or retirement; this in turn affects their probability of experiencing rising, falling, or other income trajectories. Using ten waves of the British Household Panel Survey, we analyse the income trajectories of people at different stages in their lives in order to build a picture of income dynamics over the whole life cycle. We find that particular life events are closely associated with either rising or falling trajectories, but that there is considerable heterogeneity in income trajectories following these different events. Typically, individuals experiencing one of these life events are around twice as likely to experience a particular income trajectory, but most individuals will not follow the trajectory most commonly associated with that life event. This work improves our understanding of the financial impact of different life events and provides an indication of how effectively the welfare state cushions people against the potentially adverse impact of these events.

This article provides a policy-oriented overview of the five-year ESRC Growing Older Programme of research on quality of life in old age: the largest UK social sciences research endeavour to date in the field of ageing. By way of an introduction to the Growing Older Programme, its main objectives are stated and some of its unique contributions to knowledge and research methods are summarised. Then the bulk of the article focuses on the relationship between research and policy: first in general terms and then specifically with regard to the operation of and outputs from the Programme. The particular methods used by the Programme to engage with the policy process are described, within a broad enlightenment framework. This is followed by an outline of the key elements of a multi-dimensional approach to extending the quality of later life. The five priority elements of this skeletal strategy – inequalities in old age, environments of ageing, economic and family roles, participation and involvement, and frailty and identity – are derived from the Growing Older Programme's comprehensive evidence base. In each case the policy implications of the research evidence are illustrated. Finally, the role of older people in living their own lives of quality is discussed, and the results of the Programme are used to show how aspects of both structure and agency combine to determine the quality of later life.

Government in the UK, as elsewhere in Europe, is keen to encourage individuals to delay their retirement, work for longer and save more for their retirement. This article argues that much of this public discussion is based on the debatable premise that most people are actively choosing to leave work ‘early’. Research on retirement decisions hitherto has concentrated on individual factors, which dispose towards early retirement and has neglected the role of the employer in determining retirement timing. New research reported here, undertaken in three organisational case studies, explores the management of retirement and how individual employees experience these processes. It employs the concepts of the ‘retirement zone’ and retirement scenarios to demonstrate how the interaction of individual attributes (themselves subject to change) and organisational practices (also unpredictable and variable) produces retirement outcomes. It concludes that there is considerable management discretion over the manner and timing of individual retirements. Hence, government needs to recognise that the majority of individuals may have relatively little personal discretion over their departure from work and hence concentration on urging them to work for longer and delay retiring may be missing the real target for policy change.

It is increasingly impossible to understand and explain the shape and delivery of contemporary social policy unless we consider the role of business. Several factors have been at work here. First, many of the changes in social policy introduced since the 1970s have been in response either to business demands or more general concerns about national competitiveness and the needs of business. Second, globalisation has increased corporate power within states, leading to transformations in social and fiscal policies. Third, business has been incorporated into the management of many areas of the welfare state by governments keen to control expenditure and introduce private sector values into services. Fourth, welfare services, from hospitals to schools, have been increasingly opened up to private markets. Despite all this, the issues of business influence and involvement in social policy has been neglected in the literature. This article seeks to place corporate power and influence centre-stage by outlining and critically reflecting on the place of business within contemporary welfare states, with a particular focus on the UK. Business, it argues, is increasingly important to welfare outcomes and needs to be taken into account more fully within the social policy literature.

The 1990s witnessed the spread and broadening in Europe of different types of relationships between public administration and private organisations (both for-profit and non-profit), derived from the two main categories of contracting out and accreditation. These models, linked to the process of developing new modes of governance, also focus on forms of contracting between providers and users of services. This contractual configuration of local welfare systems appears to encourage ‘civil society’ and recipients to play a more active role in designing interventions and putting them into practice. Nonetheless, several questions still remain to be answered, mainly concerning the different position adopted by the beneficiaries in the case of intervention theoretically aimed at ensuring or increasing their ‘freedom of choice’. This article sets out to analyse these questions with specific reference to the implementation of the Italian legal reform of social services. The field of observation covers interventions based on economic benefits looking to promote recipients' independence. Our intention is to focus on whether and how the present structures incorporate and elaborate this impulse towards change, with particular reference to the new configuration of the users' own position.