Search

Local state and third sector actors routinely provide support to help people navigate their right to social security and mediate their chequered relationship to it. COVID‐19 has not only underlined the significance of these actors in the claims‐making process, but also just how vulnerable those working within 'local ecosystems of support' are to external shocks and their own internal pressures. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork with organisations providing support to benefit claimants and those financially struggling during COVID‐19, this paper examines the increasingly situated nature of the claims‐making process across four local areas in the United Kingdom. We do so to consider what bearing 'local ecosystems of support' have on income adequacy, access and universality across social security systems. Our analysis demonstrates how local state and third sector actors risk amplifying inequalities that at best disadvantage, and at worst altogether exclude, particular social groups from adequate (financial) assistance. Rather than conceiving of social security as a unitary collection of social transfers, we argue that its operation needs to be understood as much more fragmented and contingent. Practitioners exhibit considerable professional autonomy and moral agency in their discretionary practice, arbitrating between competing organisational priorities, local disinvestment, and changing community needs. Our findings offer broader lessons for understanding the contemporary governance of social security across welfare states seeking to responsibilise low‐income households through the modernisation of public services, localism, and welfare reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, resilience has been invoked as both a pre-emptive and responsive strategy to tackling socio-material insecurity. This article outlines a number of discursive and administrative features that distinguish the rise of resilience from longer-term shifts towards 'active citizenship' in British social policy. We use data from two studies of financial hardship to examine how the fetishised ideal of resilience is reified and negotiated in the everyday experiences of low-income citizens. We argue that resilience is practised as 'a way of being', but in contorted ways that reflect restrictions to agency, resources and autonomy. This article makes an original contribution by exposing a current paradox within resilience as a governing agenda: it is principally pursued in ways that compromise the material and ontological security necessary for its productive potential. The article concludes by reflecting on what conceptual and applied agendas this presents for policymakers, practitioners and academics in the UK and further afield. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Quantitative research has tended to explain attitudinal divergence towards welfare and redistribution through self‐interested rationalities. However, such an approach risks abstracting individuals from the structural determinants of resource allocation and biographical experience. With that in mind, this article draws on a qualitative study of 50 individuals experiencing relative deprivation and affluence in the United Kingdom and New Zealand to examine how lived experiences of inequality affect attitude formation towards welfare and redistribution. Scenario‐driven vignettes were used to stimulate an applied discussion of abstract principles pertaining to welfare and inequality. Use of this methodological device proffered novel insight into the phenomenological effects of material position on public attitudes and policy preferences in a comparative context. The findings suggest that affluent individuals are less likely to acknowledge systemic features shaping socioeconomic life. As a result, they exhibit a poor sociological imagination that is deployed in distinct and patterned ways to make sense of, and at times justify, economic restructuring. By contrast, those living in relative deprivation are more likely to advance accounts of intergroup relations and social location that emphasize the structuration of (dis‐)advantage. Based on the findings, policy and political implications are considered for welfare and redistribution amidst rising structural inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social impact bonds are payment by results contracts that leverage private social investment to cover the up-front expenditure associated with welfare services. The introduction of private principles and actors through outcome-based commissioning has received a great deal of attention in social policy research. However, there has been much less attention given to the introduction of private capital and its relation to more established forms of quasi-marketisation. This paper examines what effect private social investment has on outcome-based commissioning and whether the alternative forms of performance measurement and management, that social impact bonds bring to bear on service operations, demonstrate the capacity to engender: innovation in service delivery; improved social outcomes; future cost savings; and additionality. This paper draws on an in-depth study of four social impact bonds in the UK context, as the welfare regime at the vanguard of this policy development. The findings suggest that the introduction of private capital in outcome-based commissioning has had a number of unique and unintended effects on service providers, operations and outcomes. The paper concludes by considering whether social impact bonds represent a risk or an opportunity for public service reform both in the UK and further afield. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper examines the policy of austerity in three European welfare regimes with differing levels of social spending and fiscal balance: Italy; Sweden; and the UK. In spite of significant material differences between the three countries, the paper begins by illustrating that there is ultimately convergence in their responses to the economic crisis. These welfare regimes have justified the terms of austerity by suggesting that economic and welfare reforms address questions of ‘need’, ‘fairness’ and ‘sustainability’. Contrary to dominant political and policy rationale, the paper demonstrates that austerity measures in each country fail to meet policy objectives given their own conceptions of social and distributive justice. The three welfare regimes lack cogent strategies to safeguard their financial sustainability and this results in a neo-liberal paradigm that compromises the ethical and internal coherence of austerity. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]