Search

The neoliberal restructuring of government policies in developed nations since the 1970s has stimulated many observers to observe the “roll back” of the state from social assistance, including housing. Some suggest that the “roll out” of new forms of state activity are occurring. This paper argues that perceptions of “roll back” and “roll out” arise from a particular conception of the capacity of the state that focuses on apparent state action over discursive production. A modified version of governmentality theory is deployed to demonstrate that despite perceptions of a weakening state housing assistance presence in Australia, the UK, the Netherlands and New Zealand, the conceptive and discursive role of the state has remained strong. The paper concludes by arguing that greater appreciation of the persistent pragmatic capacity of the state to define the objects, subjects and relationships of housing policy fruitfully illuminates the condition of the state under neoliberalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how e-Government was developed and implemented in two countries: the UK and the Netherlands. Drawing on a variety of documentary sources and extensive interview data the paper contrasts the differences in realizing the vision of e-Government between the two countries. The approaches to the realization of e-Government within each country are examined in detail, with the strengths and weaknesses of each approach identified. Based on this a mixed model for the implementation of e-Government is proposed and implications for e-Government policy are outlined. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper compares rental housing tools in the US, Britain and the Netherlands in order to determine the best strategy for enhancing rental housing accessibility. In doing so, the authors employ a 'tools approach' of governance paradigm, based on the work of Salamon's The Tools of Governance (2002). Rental housing tools are called housing vouchers in the US, housing benefits in Britain and housing allowances in the Netherlands. Overall, it was found that Britain and the Netherlands can learn from the US on means and ways of designing more efficient and fiscally responsible housing vouchers, benefits, and allowances (VBAs). The US, in turn, can learn from Britain and the Netherlands on means and needs of achieving higher equity and effectiveness. This analysis contributes in a meaningful way by addressing the missing middle link between policies and programs - namely, the tools perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy making and agenda setting often are analyzed either in terms of how policy problems are defined, or in terms of the structural setting producing stability or opportunities for change. Building on different fields of scholarly work, this paper aims at an integration of structural and substantive elements in studying agenda setting. We analyze how particular frames of immigrant issues emerge in the interaction between policy makers and experts within this immigrant policy domain. By comparing this key element of agenda setting in the Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom, we show how different types of interaction produce different substantive policy frames. If immigrant integration is shaped primarily as a policy issue in broader political arenas and the media, a different frame emerges than when venues such as advisory bodies, think tanks and bureaucracies with limited access and less public exposure are involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though the British and Dutch approaches to disability in the construction sector exhibit common features, Britain tends towards a capabilities model compared with the Netherlands which is closer to a social model. The construction sector is considerably more regulated in the Netherlands but is in both countries highly disabling and exclusive. Sector-specific disabling and enabling factors and policy measures were investigated in the two countries with a view to identifying which policies might facilitate labour market participation. The investigation was based on interviews using similar questionnaires with key stakeholders, firms and disabled employees and a focus group. Policy in each country addresses the nature of exclusion in different ways. The conclusion drawn is that a sector-specific approach is needed if disability policy in Britain is to be more in tune with the social model—as apparent from the comparison with the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]