Search

Undocumented migrants often experience how their spatial vulnerability continues across their life trajectories through different forms of displacements in the form of forced migration, being at risk of deportation and being victims of gentrification or policies that make it difficult to find a stable housing situation. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in Sweden and the UK, the paper shows how weak the position of undocumented migrants is on the housing market through recently established policies in the UK which criminalizes the letting of housing to undocumented migrants and the practice of sharing address information between the social services and the border police in Sweden. This intervention argues that these policies that construct spatial vulnerabilities locally are connected to national and transnational policies of displacement globally and suggest that "displaceability", the potential of being displaced, is a strategy for governing vulnerable groups at every scale where governing takes place. Consequently, this intervention suggests that displaceability can help us capture the universal, interconnected experience of spatial vulnerability shared by many differently positioned groups in the world who are susceptible to forced mobility or removal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Responsible incentivisation requires attention to situated stakeholder perspectives. • We develop four policy scenarios and subject them to deliberation in the UK and Sweden. • New incentives and enabling reforms to existing policy instruments are needed. • Mitigation deterrence must be considered in real world (not abstracted) contexts. • Multi-instrument approaches are needed to overcome single instrument deficiencies. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) plays a central role in scenario pathways that limit global warming in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Yet deliberate policy efforts to incentivise BECCS—whether through amending existing climate policies or introducing entirely new ones—remain rare. In this paper, we contend that BECCS must be incentivised responsibly, through policy-making processes which account for diverse and geographically varying societal values and interests. More specifically, we make the case for responsible incentivisation by undertaking a comparative analysis of stakeholder attitudes to four idealised policy scenarios for BECCS, including representatives of government, business, nongovernmental and academic communities, in the UK and Sweden. The scenarios were: business as usual; international policy reform; national BECCS policy; and national policy for negative emissions technologies. Based on our findings, we recommend that policymakers 1) recognise the need to develop new incentives and make enabling reforms to existing policy instruments; 2) consider the risk of mitigation deterrence in their real world (and not abstracted) contexts; 3) employ multi-instrument approaches to incentivisation that do not overly rely on carbon pricing or 4) force a choice between technology specific or technology neutral policies; and 5) attend to the diversity of stakeholder and wider public perspectives that will ultimately determine the success—or failure—of their policy designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: OECD countries over the past two decades have implemented a range of labour market integration initiatives to improve the employment chances of disabled and chronically ill individuals. This article presents a systematic review and evidence synthesis on effectiveness of government interventions to influence employers’ employment practices concerning disabled and chronically ill individuals in five OECD countries. A separate paper reports on interventions to influence the behaviour of employees. Methods: Electronic and grey literature searches to identify all empirical studies reporting employment effects and/or process evaluations of government policies aimed at changing the behaviour of employers conducted between 1990 and 2008 from Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Results: Few studies provided robust evaluations of the programmes or their differential effects and selection of participants into programmes may distort the findings of even controlled studies. A population-level effect of legislation to combat discrimination by employers could not be detected. Workplace adjustments had positive impacts on employment, but low uptake. Financial incentives such as wage subsidies can work if they are sufficiently generous. Involving employers in return-to-work planning can reduce subsequent sick leave and be appreciated by employees, but this policy has not been taken up with the level of intensity that is likely to make a difference. Some interventions favour the more advantaged disabled people and those closer to the labour market. Conclusions: Future evaluations need to pay more attention to differential impact of interventions, degree of take-up, non-stigmatizing implementation and wider policy context in each country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both interest-group and public-policy scholars accept that groups are important to policy formulation and implementation because they hold valuable capacities. However, the literature has not dealt with whether, and how, groups develop capacities. In this article, we examine the question of group capacity development by focusing on the adaption of specific groups to evolving policy contexts. Taking the example of organic farm policy we look at the impact that divergent policy strategies aimed at growing this infant industry sector have had on the way related industry groups have evolved in four countries. This comparative study supports our argument that policy strategy is one key force in shaping the capacities that groups develop over time. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]