Welcome to this new journal of the Social Policy Association, whose fundamental aim is to bring the study of social policy to a wider audience. It intends to mark itself out as distinct from its older sister, the Journal of Social Policy, the leading journal in the discipline, yet at the same time remain closely associated with it and complement its work. Drawing upon research and developments in all key social sciences, the journal will aim to provide an important new outlet for relevant, contemporary and stimulating articles from the specialist and non-specialist alike on a wide variety of issues concerning public and social policy. Articles can be theoretical or empirical in nature (or both) or speculative, but all will be authoritatively written.

Social experiments have been widely utilised in evaluations of social programmes in the US to identify ‘what works’, whilst in the UK their use is more controversial. This paper explores the paradigmatic, technical and practical issues evaluators confront in using randomised experiments to evaluate social policies. Possible remedies to some of these problems are outlined. It is argued that although no evaluation methodology is problem-free, policy makers and researchers should be more confident about the merits of using random assignment, provided it is used in conjunction with other methodologies more suited to understanding why and how interventions work.

Family policy now has greater prominence in UK politics than ever before. These policies are developing in the context of major constitutional change across the UK, which has the potential for significant policy divergence. Devolution has generated greater interest in Scottish family policy, and how its policy processes have been reconfigured. New Scottish legal and policy initiatives with a family focus have emerged from both Westminster and Holyrood. This paper reviews the present context for family policy in Scotland, some recent family policy developments at both UK and Scottish levels of government, and identifies key issues these raise.

Increasing and widening participation have been at the heart of New Labour's higher education initiatives since they came to power. This article argues that their 1998 reforms of student financial support were inconsistent with their commitment to widening access and fairness in educational opportunities, and their desire for higher education to contribute to greater social cohesion. The article examines this policy contradiction. It explores how the 1998 reforms came about, and the effects of the reforms. It traces briefly the development of student funding policies under the Conservatives, and under New Labour. Next, is assesses New Labour's policies and policy objectives, drawing upon the findings of a major survey on students' income and expenditure. So, it explores some of the effects and consequences, both intended and unintended, of the 1998 reforms.

This article explores the progressive and regressive potential of ‘user involvement’ in research and evaluation, with particular reference to social policy. There is growing political and research interest in user involvement. This article critically explores key different approaches to user involvement in research and relates them to consumerist and democratic models of involvement in policy and practice, management and development. The article highlights the need to approach user involvement in research critically and systematically, taking account of the diversity of approaches that have developed and to take forward user involvement in research in equal association with service user organisations and movements.

The evidence-based policy approach – the view that social policy ought to be based upon supporting evidence that the policy works (and why it works) – is currently in vogue. In this article we reflect upon one aspect of the evidence-based approach: the use of quantitative evidence in health care decision-making. In particular, we discuss both the potential usefulness of quantitative evidence in this context, and the barriers to the appropriate use of such evidence at the decision-making level.

In its proposals for achieving a better ‘work–life balance’ for Britain's working families, the New Labour government is also seeking to balance the interests of business against the needs of families. This article argues that the economic policy ‘trilemma’ resulting from economic globalisation is mirrored in a parallel family policy trilemma, with particular consequences for the poorest families. Drawing upon this argument and, partly, upon illustrative evidence from a small-scale qualitative study of low-income working families, it is suggested that promoting family friendly employment alongside a policy of welfare-to-work cannot reasonably be achieved without significant additional regulation of low-paying employers.

The standards and structure of social policy in Martinique are now very similar to those in France. However, in spite of its funding by France, welfare remains problematic. Although the staff are local, the structure and concepts are French, which technically makes policy implementation difficult, and creates uneasiness. The implementation of French welfare in Martinique runs counter to the local politics of identity and the drive for autonomy. Welfare focuses the chief ambiguity of Martinique, which craves for local control, but would like to maintain the current level of funding from Europe.

This article contributes to the growing literature concerning the necessity and desirability of democratising the UK welfare state. It takes a theoretical approach by exploring some of the key influences on contemporary debates: risk society, governmentality, the new social democracy and associational welfare. The article suggests that none of these supplies the theoretical foundations of a welfare democracy and that another approach must be found. It concludes that only by engaging with the debate concerning deliberative democracy can social policy find a way forward. The key is to emancipate social time through an alternative ethic to that of paid employment.

In recent years neuroscience has increasingly been drawn on to focus attention on the significance of early childhood years for healthy brain development. However an examination of the literature suggests that brain science has little specific to offer parents. In spite of this, a belief that these first years are a critical period for child development has provided the impetus for the introduction of early intervention programmes targeting groups who are considered to be ‘at risk’. The literature indicates that the assumptions underpinning this notion are problematic and may have implications for the success of such interventions. The factors impacting on childhood outcomes are complex and cannot be reduced solely to biomedical explanations. A more effective way to tackle child health and welfare problems would involve a multidimensional approach and include the elimination of poverty and the scrutiny of all public policy.

There can be little doubt that joined-up government (JUG) is one of New Labour's big ideas, alongside their new managerialism. Since New Labour's initial election victory in 1997 and their subsequent second term in 2001, significant resources have been spent in developing ‘joined-up’ strategies for social policy. This ‘big idea’ stretches from Cabinet level with new groups such as the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) and the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) and extends into every single social policy sector with area-based initiatives, such as Health Action, Education Action and Employment Zones, and encompasses agents from all sectors, public, private and voluntary. New Labour state that by ensuring policy making is more joined-up and strategic, social and public policy can be more ‘inclusive and integrated’ (White Paper, 1999: 6).

This article points to the simple fact that modern welfare systems are neither welfare states nor are they welfare societies. In reality, they are a combination of both. The current interpretation of the supposed dichotomy of these two institutions has inhibited our understanding of reality. Consequently, this has obscured the complicated ways in which the state and the society have worked together to harmonize the needs for social protection and active citizenship. In the present article, the example of a Chinese welfare system has been used to illustrate that even a welfare system usually not regarded as a welfare state can develop strong universal welfare state programmes. In order to demonstrate the significance of this situation, findings related to public attitudes have been cited to reflect the support of both policy assumptions underlying social protection and active citizenship in the welfare system that is under review.

In this paper we describe regional differences in partnering and parenting within Britain, using indices of the ‘Motherhood Employment Effect’ to indicate different geographical levels of adherence to the ‘traditional’ male breadwinner/female homemaker family, and of ‘Family Conventionality’ to indicate geographical differences in ‘good-enough parenting’. The geography of family formations thus described does not follow the better known ‘north–south’ or ‘urban–rural’ geographies of economic performance and prosperity, and we speculate as to how this relatively unfamiliar family geography may be related to the existence of regional gender cultures.

Despite the frequent comparisons and discussions of continuity between the Conservatives' social policies and those of New Labour, it is certainly true that the mechanisms which each has used to develop and implement social policy have been rhetorically, and often practically, different. Under the Conservatives the emphasis on markets and marketisation, with the centrality of the ‘consumer’, was reflected in social policy including through devices such as privatisation, compulsory competitive tendering, the creation of internal markets, managerialism and the use of ‘Next Steps’ agencies for delivery. New Labour's approach has made familiar terms such as ‘joined-up’ government, ‘evidence-based’ policy, ‘partnership’, ‘modernisation’ and ‘democratic renewal’. And, whatever might be said about their social policies, New Labour have shown a degree of radicalism in their governmental and constitutional reforms, most notably perhaps through devolution to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and the passing of the Human Rights Act. At the same time, the EU has been developing as a political and decision-making entity with an emerging social dimension, that has, as Duncan argues here, the potential for some impact on UK social policy.

The starting point of this paper is that the shift from a producer to a consumer society necessitates that social exclusion is investigated not only in relation to production but also consumption. To do this, case study evidence from interviews with 350 households in rural England is reported. This reveals that people define themselves as excluded from mainstream consumption not only when they are unable to acquire goods but also when they rely on informal and second-hand channels (e.g., car boot sales, second-hand shops) to obtain them. Social exclusion in consumer society is thus found to relate to not only non-possession but also exclusion from mainstream modes of goods acquisition.

This article reflects on the events of 11th September, 2001, in their immediate aftermath. Globalisation has brought economic interdependence without institutions for global distributive justice. The challenge for social policy of greater mobility of people, both within and between states, is as pressing as the problems of security highlighted by those events. These issues will demand attention long after the ‘war against terrorism’ has abated, because rich First World countries can no longer insulate themselves from the effects of poverty and injustice in the developing world.

This paper outlines the development EU policy discourse on ‘the reconciliation of work and family life’. This imposes a policy disjuncture on New Labour, for, while the British government may be ideologically more attracted to the liberal US model of ‘flexible’ labour, it is bound by EU law to implement a more corporatist gender equality model. The paper notes how themes of economic competition, democratisation, and protecting gender contracts emerged at the foundation EU gender policy. It traces these themes into an ‘equal opportunities at work’ discourse during the 1970s and 1980s and, with the increasing importance of the ‘demographic time bomb’ discourse and of Scandinavian style gender equality, into discourses stressing the ‘reconciliation of paid work with family life’ and gender mainstreaming. The paper ends by addressing the ‘half-empty or half-full’ assessments of EU gender policy.

For much of the post-war period, the advanced industrial nations of Europe congratulated themselves on having it both ways: successful capitalist economies which also provided effective welfare states – affluence plus social justice. Commentators have traditionally seen social democracy as the friend of social welfare. More recently, the virtuous liaison of social democratic politics with successful democratic welfare capitalism has been called into question. Welfare states face pressures from economic globalisation, population ageing, spending constraint and changes in labour markets and in family patterns; it is argued that traditional social democratic approaches find it difficult to pursue policies that will enable welfare states to adapt and continue to combine high social standards with economic growth in the changed conditions of the twenty-first century. In short, the social democratic welfare state is outmoded.

This article serves three purposes. The first and main one is to introduce the ESRC's Growing Older Programme and its research agenda. Secondly, it outlines the four main challenges confronting the programme and its research teams: the methodological one concerning ‘quality of life’, the democratic one of participation, the challenge of communication and, ultimately, that of policy impact. Thirdly, the demographic and policy contexts that helped to create the Programme and to which it must respond are also discussed briefly.

The concept of evidence-based policy and practice has many origins but its relation to the growth of the social sciences is arguably the most important. The uses of the social sciences for both understanding and transforming social policies and political systems has come to be assumed – complex and problematic though these may be. The concept is also closely linked with the concepts of globalisation, technological developments, and the ‘knowledge economy’. Thus the notions of ‘evidence’ and social science research have often been elided with political movements for social and economic change. In other contexts, these notions have been contextualised, so that ‘evidence’ and research are not deemed to be the same. Indeed, it is possible to argue that the notion of legal ‘evidence’ illustrates just how ideological it can be, how it can be used to marshal particular arguments and sustain a specific case rather than present it in a dispassionate manner.