Search

The expansion of the UK’s support for families with children from the late 1990s was put into reverse over the decade from 2010. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore, parents may have felt that they had less support from the government and increased private responsibility in bringing up the next generation. Drawing on qualitative interviews with parents in England and Scotland claiming Universal Credit, this article analyses parenting experiences for low-income families during the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular concerning the costs of looking after children, caring for children, and family relationships/mental health. Our findings suggest that the privatisation of parenting in the UK has been further reinforced during the pandemic, with largely negative implications for families with children. The positive experiences for some with families must be supported by public policy change to persist.

“Voice training for actors is paradoxical: The actor must develop the voice to its utmost potential in order then to forget about it, to sacrifice it—to let it be burned through by the heat of thou...

A recent government proposal to increase national insurance contributions for the self-employed in the UK, in return for improved pensions and potentially also parental benefits, was immediately reversed. This article analyses the reasons behind this about-turn, linking them to tensions between the goals of thwarting ‘bogus’ self-employment and increasing tax revenues versus commitment to a higher wage, lower tax, lower welfare economy. The analysis is set in the context of the singularity of the UK system in relation to much social protection in continental Europe, and wider debates about the roles of individual, state and labour market in providing security.

Universal Credit is a fundamental reform of the UK’s social security system. It is also seen as embodying a traditional view of the family. Drawing on principles for gender analysis of ‘welfare reform’, this article critically examines how couples claiming Universal Credit are conceptualised by the UK government, in relation to equality impact assessments of the proposals; guidance for, and data and studies about, claimants; policy debates; and research by or for government. It demonstrates a failure to interrogate the concept of the unitary household or the two-way influence of gender roles, relationships and inequalities within couples and ‘welfare reform’.

If you are involved in, or concerned about, advice giving in the UK today – or both – you should read this book. Like other Policy Press Shorts, it is quick and easy to read, and therefore aimed at...

The UK government has been considering the design and delivery of the proposed “universal credit”, the centerpiece of its welfare reforms. The authors draw on findings from their own research, about how low/moderate-income couples manage money and negotiate gender roles, to demonstrate their relevance to exploring the gender implications of the proposals for universal credit. Findings from this and other similar studies are used to explore the value of qualitative research to policy design and debates – in particular to supplement economic modeling, which has been highly influential in driving the current UK government's thinking on welfare reform. The authors discuss the reasons why insights about gender relations within the household revealed by such qualitative research appear to have been resisted in the reform.

Since the 1990s, international social science research has made a major contribution to the evidence base on changing family forms and household structures by collecting and processing data about family composition, dissolution and reconstitution, as well as household living, working and caring arrangements. Social scientists have exploited the available data to analyse the social, economic and financial impacts of family change on relations between the generations and their implications for policy. This article explores the varied conceptual understandings of family, household and generation. It reviews international socio-demographic data that track trends in family relations and identifies the contributions of different disciplinary perspectives to the evidence base. The authors consider intergenerational relations both within families and in wider society, covering property, finances, care and value systems, in addition to public policies determining the provision of benefits, goods and services supporting family life. They highlight the challenges facing social scientists in collecting and evaluating evidence about changing intergenerational relations and in assessing policy responses. Acknowledging that many factors contribute to policy development and implementation, they conclude by recognising the extent to which governments in different societal contexts vary in their responses to apparently similar challenges.

This chapter shows how the UK tackled the crisis. The UK was affected early and implemented a post-crisis stimulus package quickly. But from 2010, with a new government, austerity was the watchword, with cuts in social security expenditures prioritized over tax increases. Spending on education and health was shielded, as were old-age pensioners’ benefits, but those of families with children were reduced. From 2015 a Conservative majority government continued on a similar path, though also implementing tax cuts and a higher minimum wage. Under the new Prime Minister, the aim of balancing the public finances was postponed. Initially the pain of the crisis was shared more broadly. But financial hardship increased after 2012, especially for lone parents and disabled people, and benefit cuts affected women in particular. Whilst employment has increased, recovery has been slow. It seems unlikely positive welfare state developments can be expected in the near future.

The ‘unitary household’ lives on in policymakers’ assumptions about couples sharing their finances. Yet financial autonomy is seen as a key issue in gender relations, particularly for women. This article draws on evidence from semi-structured individual interviews with men and women in thirty low-/moderate-income couples in Britain. The interviews explored whether financial autonomy had any meaning to these individuals; and, if so, to what extent this was gendered in the sense of there being differences in men's and women's understanding of it. We develop a framework for the investigation of financial autonomy, involving several dimensions: achieving economic independence, having privacy in one's financial affairs and exercising agency in relation to household and/or personal spending. We argue that financial autonomy is a relevant issue for low-/moderate-income couples, and that women are more conscious of tensions between financial togetherness and autonomy due to their greater responsibility for managing togetherness and lower likelihood of achieving financial independence. Policymakers should therefore not discount the aspirations of women in particular for financial autonomy, even in low-/moderate-income couples where there remain significant obstacles to achieving this. Yet plans for welfare reform that rely on means testing and ignore intra-household dynamics in relation to family finances threaten to exacerbate these obstacles and reinforce a unitary family model.

The ‘living wage’ is an idea with a long history in the UK currently enjoying a renaissance. This article explores possible reasons for its re-emergence as a policy demand, but argues that thinking of low pay primarily as ‘poverty pay’ caused by employers’ failure to pay a living wage raises practical and conceptual issues that are problematic. It examines to what extent recent attempts to resolve such issues in the UK and elsewhere have succeeded, and concludes by suggesting that alternative ways of analysing and addressing the two key issues associated with the living wage, low pay and in work poverty, are required.

Research into intrahousehold finances challenges key assumptions about the family as a unitary whole, investigates the extent of sharing within it, examines mechanisms of control and allocation of resources, and reveals the personalized nature of different monies. This article presents an overview of research on within-household distribution (understood as both outcome and process). It discusses major questions addressed, including inequalities between (gendered) individuals and the potential reasons for these. It outlines significant developments and debates, within qualitative research in particular, in relation to the unit of analysis (traditionally, the married couple), the texture and meaning of financial dealings within couples, and the tensions between autonomy and equal sharing as values. It then discusses several key methodological challenges, and concludes by highlighting some policy implications of central research messages. Throughout, it draws on and discusses the other articles in this special section, which explore key methodological issues in researching within-household distribution.Key Words: decision making, equality, fairness, family resource management, gender."Research on the material aspects of family life is not easy because so much economic behaviour takes place (literally) behind closed doors." (Burgoyne, Clarke, Reibstein, & Edmunds, 2006, p. 619)As this quotation suggests, in relation to financial dealings within the household the family has often been seen as a ' 'black box' ' that it is not possible to investigate (Pahl, 1989, p. 4). More substantively, such investigation could be seen as unnecessary interference, because the family is in any case a "glued-together" unit whose interests are as one (Sen, 1997, p. 371). Two further, more specific, assumptions tend to follow. First, all household members are assumed to benefit equally, or at least proportionally to their needs, from household resources. Second, incomes are put together "all in one pot" (Sung & Bennett, 2007) for distribution, with no differentiation, and with any mechanisms of control or decision making remaining unexamined. These assumptions are applied in particular to coresident family members-the "family household" (Haddad, Hoddinott, & Alderman, 1997). A third, additional assumption relates to the nature of money, which may be viewed as an essentially neutral, and endlessly fungible, means of exchange within the household as well as outside.An alternative body of thought on within-household distribution, however, has interrogated each of these three assumptions and found them wanting. First, while acknowledging that people can derive various benefits from living together (Himmelweit & Santos, 2009), it is argued that, because of the unequal positions of individuals in households, some sharing of Department of Social Policy and Intervention, 32Wellington Square, Oxford 0X1 2ER, England(ifan.bennett@spi.ox.ac.uk).resources is often necessary-but may not itself be equal. Second, it is asserted that an allocation method must intervene between receipt of household resources and their consumption, and that this should be scrutinized. Last, in relation to the nature of money, instead of this being neutral, researchers argue that it has "social meaning" in varying contexts (Nyman, 2003; Singh, 1997; Zelizer, 1994). As Robeyns (2003) argued, for example, "even if household income were shared completely, it is problematic to assume that it does not matter in a well-being assessment whether a person has earned this money herself, or obtained it from her partner" (p. 65). Money is thus a social and ideological, not just an economic, medium of exchange (Pahl, 1989). "Personalized" monies in particular, such as those from a spouse, can carry expectations about future behavior (Hallerod, Diaz, & Stocks, 2007, pp. 144 - 147) and be "laden with meaning" (Nyman, Reinikainen, & Stocks, 2013, this issue); money thus forms an integral part of the "emotional economy" of family life (Goode, 2010). …

Following the confusion that has surrounded the Chancellor's announcement on cuts to child benefit for higher-rate taxpayers, Fran Bennett defends the existing benefit as simple, successful and fair.

Universal Credit is a major change in the UK's social security system which will affect around eight million households by replacing six existing means-tested benefits and tax credits with a single benefit, based on income, assets and circumstances, and paid monthly. Much commentary about Universal Credit has supported the principle but raised concerns about delivery. This consensus about the principles and the focus on delivery have resulted in less attention being paid to key policy choices informing the design. This article examines two aspects of the design of Universal Credit: the aim to make Universal Credit as much ‘like work’ as possible, and the architecture of the means test. The focus here is the gap between the assumptions underlying the design of Universal Credit, on the one hand, and the research evidence about life on a low income, and in low-waged and often insecure employment, on the other. Finally, we discuss the most significant contradiction between the ‘transformational’ aim for Universal Credit, to help people achieve greater ‘independence’ from the state, and the realities of deepening and widening control of claimants’ lives.

This paper examines some current reforms to social security benefits / tax credits and changes to employment provisions from a gender perspective. It analyses tensions between the trend towards ‘individualisation’ and growing emphasis on the couple/household as a policy focus. New tax credits change the distribution of resources within many couples. Incentives to work for some second earners should improve; but extending in-work subsidies to childless couples raises questions. Payment of child tax credit to the ‘main carer’ has been welcomed, though the implications of joint ownership of tax credits are unclear, and joint assessment will be extended. Many claimants' partners can now access employment services. However, this is aimed at reducing the number of workless households rather than expanding individuals' opportunities. Joint claims for jobseeker's allowance, and work-focused interviews, involve increased responsibilities for partners but no right of access to individual income. A more consistent critical analysis of reform from a gender perspective is required.

The growth of wage supplementation through in-work benefits and tax credits has been one of the most fundamental recent developments in the UK social security system. Broad statements of policy aims such as ‘making work pay’ and providing ‘support for work’ are superficially simple and clear. In practice, however, they cover a complex variety of goals and policy instruments. This article outlines the main policy measures introduced since 1997, discusses the different policy goals and highlights some of the major limitations of the current policy approach.

Parliamentary Questions is a selection of recent written questions from MPs to government ministers in the House of Commons. The answers from ministers highlighted in this section focus on social security, tax credits and poverty matters that may be of general interest to readers. Published in daily and weekly editions of Hansard, questions and answers across a range of issues can also now be found online at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/hansrd.htm In addition to written parliamentary questions, Hansard also covers oral answers from the ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions and other departments on a regular basis. Recently ministers also started making written ministerial statements. These are printed just before the written answers in Hansard, and often cover announcements of substantive policy changes, the publication of reports etc. Because of the availability of parliamentary answers on the website, only a few significant answers are now reproduced in full in Benefits. Other important answers are listed below, in chronological date order, within each topic. (Please note that this is not a complete list of parliamentary answers on social security benefits etc but only those which the contributor thinks fairly important and/or interesting within the limits of space.) The answers below cover the period from the beginning of February to the end of May 2004. Some questions will have been addressed to the Treasury rather than to the Department for Work and Pensions, including the question reproduced in full.

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Government11 Gender and sexuality12 Demography

1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 Voluntary sector10 Government11 Gender and sexuality12 Demography

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health (formerly Health care)3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Government (formerly Local government)11 Gender12 Demography

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health (formerly Health care)3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Government (formerly Local government)11 Gender12 Demography

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health (formerly Health care)3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Government (formerly Local government)11 Gender12 Demography

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health (formerly Health care)3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Government (formerly Local government)11 Gender12 Demography

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health (formerly Health care)3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Government (formerly Local government)11 Gender12 Demography

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health (formerly Health care)3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Government (formerly Local government)11 Gender12 Demography

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health (formerly Health care)3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Government (formerly Local government)11 Gender12 Demography

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health (formerly Health care)3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Government (formerly Local government)11 Gender12 Demography

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health (formerly Health care)3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Government (formerly Local government)11 Gender12 Demography

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health (formerly Health care)3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Government (formerly Local government)11 Gender12 Demography

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health (formerly Health care)3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Government (formerly Local government)11 Gender12 Demography

Contents1 Social security and income maintenance2 Health care3 Education4 Housing and environment5 Personal social services6 Law and the treatment of the offender7 Unemployment and the labour market8 Race relations9 The voluntary sector10 Local government11 Gender12 Demography