The expansion of social pensions in Latin America was part of a larger process aimed at extending protections to informal workers and other individuals not covered by social insurance. These reforms were enacted by governments of different colours, and varied considerably with regard to the scope of the new programmes. While previous comparative studies have privileged economic factors and electoral dynamics to explain these differences, this article extends these frameworks to incorporate the interplay between contentious and institutional politics. It uses a two-step qualitative comparative analysis to investigate the long-term effect of protests on reforms extending the coverage of social pensions under different constellations of political, economic and institutional conditions in 18 Latin American countries (2000-2011). The results show that protest was present in almost all configurations of expansion, but that its effect was contingent on the ideology of governments, the levels of political competition and the strength of unions.

This paper investigates changes over the period 2005 to 2014 in material deprivation dynamics of social risk groups in 11 European countries covering a range of welfare regimes. The period covered experienced dramatic economic change, encompassing periods of boom, the Great Recession and early recovery. Social risk groups are defined as groups which differ in the challenges that they face in converting resources into desired outcomes. The comparative element of the paper allows us to assess whether certain welfare regimes were better at protecting more vulnerable groups. Results, based on the longitudinal component of the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions and on analysis of deprivation dynamics between pairs of years, showed large inequality between groups in the risk of persistent deprivation – with lone parents and people with disability most at risk in all countries. Variation across welfare regimes was restricted to the contrast between the liberal and the remaining regimes. Countries belonging to the former regime (UK and Ireland) were distinctive in showing the largest social risk gap in persistent deprivation and were the only ones which experienced substantial polarisation between groups with the Great Recession.

This article conceptualizes recent momentum for basic income in the context of the legitimization crisis of neoliberalism and the dissolution of the ‘progressive neoliberal’ governing bloc that secured its hegemony for more than two decades. Through an assessment of the ideas of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, it argues that basic income is one of the few policy solutions in the mainstream discourse that improves social welfare and income security, while also remaining consistent with neoliberalism’s inner logic. Accordingly, it holds the potential to temporarily stabilize neoliberalism’s political crisis by offering a consensus issue around which a new centrist coalition could emerge. Although much of the basic income literature has focused on grassroots coalitions and synergies between left and right, it has largely overlooked the emergence of the historical forces that have pushed it onto the mainstream policy agenda.

The Government in England contributes an estimated £3.9 billion funding to support childcare and education for three- and four-year olds and for some two-year olds. A significant proportion of this money is spent on private sector childcare. However, little is known about how the money paid to companies providing private sector childcare is used. Through a cross-case analysis, the financial accounts of a sample of medium-to large private ‘for-profit’ childcare groups were compared with some ‘not-for-profit’ childcare providers. We found that for the for-profit companies, a considerable amount of money is being extracted for debt repayment and relatively little goes into staff wages. We found that large private for-profit nursery groups predominately use ‘private equity’ models which are characterised by borrowings and debt, with a focus on short-term financial returns. This ‘for-profit’ financial operating model arguably risks the sustainability of provision in the sector. Reformed regulation and transparency in the accounting of such providers and a consideration of alternative ‘not-for-profit’ financial models could provide greater stability and resilience.

The involvement of citizens in the production and creation of public services has become a central tenet for administrations internationally. In Scotland, co-production has underpinned the integration of health and social care via the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. We report on a qualitative study that examined the experiences and perspectives of local and national leaders in Scotland on undertaking and sustaining co-production in public services. By adopting a meso and macro perspective, we interviewed senior planning officers from eight health and social care partnership areas in Scotland and key actors in national agencies. The findings suggest that an overly complex Scottish governance landscape undermines the sustainability of co-production efforts. As part of a COVID-19 recovery, both the implementation of meaningful co-production and coordinated leadership for health and social care in Scotland need to be addressed, as should the development of evaluation capacities of those working across health and social care boundaries so that co-production can be evaluated and report to inform the future of the integration agenda.

The hybridisation of welfare regimes is a critical issue in social policy literature due to the lack of a uniform dependent variable and the comparative, international scope of social policy analysis, and data availability. We argue that what is presented in the global welfare regime literature as an analytical problem of classification or transitioning could also, in fact, be treated as a methodological issue. Based on this, we aim to establish a criterion for determining the membership of a welfare regime by capturing the presence of hybridisation of welfare regimes in a given country at a particular time. We present a novel methodological approach based on multistage sampling to capture the hybridisation of distinct welfare regimes and determine the most populous cluster in Pakistan. Establishing criteria for capturing and determining welfare regime membership can improve the understanding of welfare regime dynamics and factors that contribute to hybridisation. Ultimately, this knowledge can inform policy decisions and contribute to the development of more effective welfare systems for diverse populations.

UK policy discourse presents technology as a solution to challenges facing care services, including issues of quality and the mismatch between care workforce supply and demand. This discourse characterises technology as ‘transformative’, homogenous and wholly positive for care delivery, eliding the diversity of digital devices and systems and their varied uses. Our paper draws on data gathered through 34 interviews with care sector stakeholders and four in-depth case studies of UK homecare providers to comparatively analyse ‘storylines’ of technological solutions expressed by policy (macro-level), sector stakeholders (meso-level) and homecare managers and care workers (micro-level) alongside enacted experiences of technology-in-use. The ‘storylines’ presented by care sector stakeholders and homecare managers converged with those of the policy discourse, emphasising technology’s capacity to enhance quality and efficiency. Our case studies however highlighted several implications for care work and organisational practice in homecare provision: the technologies we observed sometimes produced additional tasks and responsibilities, undermining the efficiency and quality storylines. The experiences of care providers and workers engaging with technologies in homecare warrant further investigation and greater prominence to challenge a discourse which is at times overly simplistic and optimistic.

Three reforms each appealing to a different logic of (re)distribution are strongly politicized in contemporary welfare states: means-tested benefits, demanding activation policies and basic income schemes. While the policy design of means-tested benefits relies on the distributive justice principle of need, demanding activation policies are intrinsically related to the principle of equity and basic income schemes depend on equality. Based on the moral economy and policy feedback literatures, which assume that public opinion adapts to the normative conceptions of justice encapsulated by institutions, attitudes towards these welfare reforms are expected to be grounded on these distributive logics. However, as these reforms are weakly institutionalized and their underlying principles are politically contested, the normative foundation of their public support remains unclear. This study investigates how distributive justice preferences shape support for these proposals by applying structural equation modelling on data from the CRONOS panel linked to the European Social Survey round 8 (2016/2017). Results indicate that only basic income schemes and demanding activation policies are to some extent connected to each of the justice principles. Overall, this study nevertheless indicates that the justice principles have limited explanatory power, which confirms that attitudes towards contemporary welfare reforms rely weakly on justice norms.

A political revolution now under way among Western countries may have drastic repercussions on the poor. For most of the post-war period, government programmes designed to raise the income share of the poor proliferated and expanded. In the wake of the world-wide slowdown in economic growth following the first oil embargo of 1973, critics argued that the gains from redistributional programmes are far outweighed by adverse side-effects that reduce work and savings. These arguments have been taken with increasing seriousness. In the United States, England, Germany, and even in the Netherlands and Scandinavia, public income transfer programmes have been or are being cut back. On the face of it, only France and Italy seem to be resisting this trend; Switzerland, though it partook in the rapid expansion of the earlier period, has temporarily reached a plateau in spending.

This study assesses the impact of South Carolina’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, Family Independence (FI), on the longitudinal earnings of three cohorts of new entrants who entered the study before, at the beginning of, and at the height of the 2007-2009 recession. Applicants who began the application process but did not enroll in TANF were propensity-score matched to entrants by background characteristics including pre-intervention earnings history, and served as the comparison group. We constructed a latent growth curve model to test whether earnings histories were similar for the program and comparison groups up until FI intake, to estimate program impact by comparing post-intake earnings of program participants to those of the comparison group, and to determine the statistical significance of cohort differences in program impact. The findings showed FI had a positive impact on the earnings of participants before the recession. The effect became weaker during the state’s period of rising unemployment, and disappeared during the worst economic recession in decades. This study demonstrates the usefulness of longitudinal administrative data, propensity score matching, and latent growth modeling techniques for evaluating the impact of program interventions.

This study aims to deepen our understanding of social investment expansion proposing a political learning mechanism to link existing institutional and political explanations. When resources are limited, increased spending in social investment often comes at the expense of politically costly retrenchment of established social insurance policies. Previous studies suggest that this trade-off results in existing entitlements crowding out new policies, and that party ideology plays less of a role in determining social policy expansion. I argue that this is because parties face an electoral dilemma, as individual preferences for social investment and social insurance have been shown to differ between groups that partly overlap in their voting behaviour. Applying a policy diffusion framework to the analysis of childcare expenditure, this study proposes that policymakers learn from the political consequences of past decisions made by their foreign counterparts and update their policy choice accordingly. The econometric analysis of OECD data on childcare expenditure shows that governments tend to make spending decisions that follow those of ideologically similar cabinets abroad and that left-wing governments with a divided electorate tend to reduce childcare expenditure if a previous expansionary decision of a foreign incumbent is followed by an electoral defeat. The findings have implications for the study of the politics of social policy development.

In the United Kingdom, special legislative provision for medical research was first made by the National Insurance Act 1911. On various earlier occasions public funds for the purpose had been provided on a small scale to successive central health departments in England and Wales, sporadically from 1833 and regularly from 1870; and notably to the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis appointed in 1901, which decided to ascertain facts by investigation rather than listen to opinions from witnesses.

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.