Poverty research has increasingly focused on persistent income poverty, both as a crucial social indicator and as a target for policy intervention. Such an approach can lead to an identification of a sub-set of poor individuals facing particularly adverse circumstances and/or distinctive problems in escaping from poverty. Here we seek to establish whether, in comparison with cross-sectional measures, persistent poverty measures also provide a better measure of exclusion from a minimally acceptable way of life and relate with other important variables in a logical fashion. Our analysis draws upon the first three waves of the ECHP and shows that a persistent poverty measure does constitute a significant improvement over its cross-sectional counterpart in the explanation of levels of deprivation. Persistent poverty is related to life-style deprivation in a manner that comes close to being uniform across countries. The measure of persistence also conforms to our expectations of how a poverty measure should behave in that, unlike relative income poverty lines, defining the threshold level more stringently enables us to identify progressively groups of increasingly deprived respondents. Overall the persistent poverty measure constitutes a significant advance on cross-sectional income measures. However, there is clearly a great deal relating to the process of accumulation and of erosion of resources, which is not fully captured in the persistent poverty measure. In the absence of such information, there is a great deal to be said for making use of both types of indictors in formulating and evaluating policies while we continue to improve our understanding of longer-term processes.

The circumstances which favoured the expansion of state welfare in the post-war ‘golden age’ – secure growth, full employment, moderate welfare needs and national politico-economic autonomy – have been reversed in the ‘silver age’ of labour market restructuring, demographic transition and economic globalisation. Most researchers argue that the European welfare settlement is (so far) surprisingly resilient in the face of current challenges. This article argues that analysis of welfare states has been approached from two basic directions – quantitative analysis and comparative case study – and that each approach has its merits and difficulties. Using the example of pensions policy it show that quantitative methods tend to produce findings which place greater emphasis on continuity and resilience, while case studies focus attention more on political processes. The latter approach is likely to provide greater insight into shifts that may lead to new policy directions in the immediate future. The picture presented by the quantitative method tends to predominate in comparative cross-national studies of the response of welfare states to current pressures, and this may overemphasise stability and resilience against discontinuity and change.

Extending choice in health care is currently popular among English, and other, politicians. Those promoting choice make an appeal to a simple economic argument. Competitive pressure helps make private firms more efficient and consumer choice acts as a major driver for efficiency. Giving service users the ability to choose applies competitive pressure to health care providers and, analogously with private markets, they will raise their game to attract business. The article subjects this assumption to the scrutiny provided by a review of the theoretical and empirical economic evidence on choice in health care. The review considers several interlocking aspects of the current English choice policy: competition between hospitals, the responsiveness of patients to greater choice, the provision of information, and the use of fixed prices. The article concludes that there is neither strong theoretical nor empirical support for competition, but that there are cases where competition has improved outcomes. The article ends with a discussion of the implications of this literature for policies to promote competition in the English NHS.

Rowntree is widely regarded as having originated in 1901 the ‘scientific’ definition of poverty as the minimum income level required for physical subsistence. He is quoted as defining ‘secondary poverty’ above this income level as mismanagement. Critics of this approach confuse Rowntree's use of concepts with his discussion of causes, and they overlook Rowntree's own explanation that his concept of poverty was relativistic life-style, and that his distinction between primary and secondary poverty was a heuristic device to convince individualists that the life-style of the poor was at least in part caused by low income and not by improvidence. Townsend's major life work in defining and measuring poverty as relative deprivation is usually presented as overthrowing Rowntree's paradigm. The paper shows that Rowntree's early views and methods have been widely misunderstood by later authors, and it argues that the evidence necessitates a reconsideration of Rowntree's position, which would show Townsend's achievement as a paradigmatic shift not from absolutist to relativistic models of poverty but from relativistic models based on standards prescribed by expert observers to relativistic models based on standards derived from the whole population by social surveys.

It is increasingly impossible to understand and explain the shape and delivery of contemporary social policy unless we consider the role of business. Several factors have been at work here. First, many of the changes in social policy introduced since the 1970s have been in response either to business demands or more general concerns about national competitiveness and the needs of business. Second, globalisation has increased corporate power within states, leading to transformations in social and fiscal policies. Third, business has been incorporated into the management of many areas of the welfare state by governments keen to control expenditure and introduce private sector values into services. Fourth, welfare services, from hospitals to schools, have been increasingly opened up to private markets. Despite all this, the issues of business influence and involvement in social policy has been neglected in the literature. This article seeks to place corporate power and influence centre-stage by outlining and critically reflecting on the place of business within contemporary welfare states, with a particular focus on the UK. Business, it argues, is increasingly important to welfare outcomes and needs to be taken into account more fully within the social policy literature.

This article makes the case for a radical new strategy on ageing which focuses on the whole life course with the intention of preventing many of the chronic conditions associated with old age. The case is built on recent research evidence and the life-course concept of ‘active ageing’ is used to encapsulate the practical measures required. Combining biological and social science insights it is argued that, while ageing is inevitable, it is also plastic. This means that it not only manifests itself in different ways but also that it can be modified by mitigating the various risk factors that drive it. Such action would have considerable potential to reduce the personal costs of chronic conditions such as strokes and those falling on family carers but, also, to cut the associated health and social care expenditures. The question of why such apparently beneficial policy action is not being taken is discussed and a range of barriers are identified. One of these appears to be the UK's extreme brand of neo-liberalism, which militates against the collective approach necessary to implement a social policy for active ageing. Although the case is made with primary reference to UK policy and practice, the call for action to prevent chronic conditions has global relevance.

Indices of material deprivation are of increasing interest in Britain and the EU as potential markers of poverty, as an alternative, or complement, to measures of low income. This is the first panel regression analysis of the relationship between households' incomes and deprivation scores over time. We show a close underlying link (people with long-term low incomes report long-term deprivation), but only a weak dynamic link (people whose income increases do not always report a commensurate fall in deprivation). The implications for poverty measurement are important both to academic analysts and to policy-makers.

Financial inclusion/exclusion has recently been emphasised as an important policy option aimed at alleviating poverty, minimising social exclusion and enhancing economic growth. In this article, we review the growing interest in financial exclusion and inclusion, define them and demonstrate their existence in developing and developed countries. Our empirical focus is on whether financial inclusion has been successfully implemented in four sites in rural South India where banks claimed that financial inclusion is complete. Although many rural people in South India are financially included, the concept of financial inclusion is more complex than usually portrayed. Our findings show that social and personal deprivation contributes to financial exclusion and should be viewed as key barriers to financial inclusion. We also suggest that financial inclusion is not a monolithic phenomenon and should be studied in a multi-layered fashion, ranging from having a bank account to making full use of modern financial instruments.

Over the last twenty years, policy-makers have placed increasing emphasis on individual planning, particularly in relation to pensions. Planning for one's own future, and that of one's family, is increasingly upheld as a morally responsible activity. This article explores the assumptions made by policy-makers in this area. It begins with a discussion of how the rhetoric from policy-makers and policy-commentators makes considerable reference to individual planning and responsibility. The policies themselves, however, sometimes act as disincentives to make private provision and do relatively little to provide security for people's future retirement. The article then draws on empirical research including recent qualitative findings to emphasise the limited nature of private pension planning and the constraints people face in relation to this activity.

This paper presents an empirical study of asylum seekers in Glasgow and their capacity to co-produce the public services they use. It is divided into three parts. The first briefly examines the theory of co-production, revisiting a conceptual framework for co-production developed through the integration of the public administration and services management literatures (Osborne and Strokosch, 2013). Second, the paper examines the capacity of asylum seekers in Scotland to co-produce, considering their position as a marginalised group in society which significantly challenges many of the assertions about the nature of co-production. Finally, the paper discusses the implications of this new evidence for our understanding of the links between public services consumption and citizenship, asking two fundamental questions: can asylum seekers, as non-citizens, co-produce the public services they receive and, if so, what forms does co-production take; and what are the implications of this for social inclusion and citizenship?

In recent years, the dynamics of poverty and unemployment have come under increasing scrutiny, but another of the risks with which the welfare state concerns itself – disability – is still largely understood only in a static sense. This article uses longitudinal data from the British Household Panel Survey to investigate the complexity behind a cross-sectional snapshot. First, a breakdown is given of the working-age population who are disabled at any one time by the ‘disability trajectories’ they follow over a seven-year period. Second, the expected duration of disability for those who become disabled during working life is examined. The results show that only a small proportion of working-age people who experience disability are long-term disabled, although at any one time, long-term disabled people make up a high proportion of all disabled people. Over half of those who become limited in activities of daily living as adults have spells lasting less than two years, but few who remain disabled after four years recover. Intermittent patterns of disability, particularly due to mental illness, are common. Failing to distinguish the different disability trajectories people follow has led to policies which marginalise disabled people and are costly to the state.

This article aims to explore the concept of choice in public service policy in England, illustrated through findings of the Individual Budgets (IB) evaluation. The evaluation tested the impact of IBs as a mechanism to increase choice of access to and commissioning of social care services around the individual through a randomised trial and explored the experiences and perspectives of key groups through a large set of interviews. The article presents a re-examination of these interview data, using three ‘antagonisms of choice’ proposed in the literature – choice and power relations, choice and equity, and choice and the public nature of decisions – as organising themes. The randomised trial found that IB holders perceived they had more control over their lives and appreciated the extra choice over use of services, albeit with variations by user group. However, problems of power relations, equity and the constraints implied by the public nature of decision-making were complicating and limiting factors in producing the benefits envisaged. The focus on choice in policy, especially as implemented by IBs, emphasises an individualistic approach. The findings suggest that addressing broader issues relating to power, equity and an understanding of the public nature of choice will be of value in realising more of the benefits of the policy.

The article concerns waiting for inpatient admission in the NHS and focuses on three aspects of this persistent problem. These are the merits or otherwise of rationing health care through waiting as opposed to pricing, the interpretation of waiting lists as a proxy for excess demand in the ‘market’ for inpatient care, including a critical examination of the logic and empirical evidence underlying the view that inpatients pay a time price for their admission, and the question of an admissions index to replace the largely inconsistent admission criteria currently employed in the hospital service. In particular the construction of an index incorporating the values of fairness and efficiency is discussed and the following characteristics suggested for inclusion: time already spent on the waiting list; urgency based on expected rate of deterioration of the patient's condition; urgency based on the patient's health status; urgency based on the ‘social productivity’ of the patient and the number of economic dependants; and urgency based on other social factors.

The conclusions are that emphasis should be placed on waiting times rather than lists, that systematic admissions criteria should be developed and that the latter should incorporate social judgements which to date have been ignored or dominated by clinical judgements.

In 2011, the UK Coalition government introduced its flagship welfare-to-work programme, ‘The Work Programme’ (WP). Based on a ‘payment by results’ model, it aims to incentivise contracted providers to move participants into sustained employment. Employer involvement is central to the programme's success and this paper explores the ‘two faces’ of this neglected dimension of active labour market policy (ALMP) analysis: employer involvement with the programme and the engagement between providers and employers. This paper draws empirically from a regional survey of primarily private and third sector SMEs, and from interviews with providers and stakeholders about provider engagement with SMEs and large employers. Findings indicate that SMEs had recruited few staff through the WP and had little awareness of it, and that providers engaged in intense competition to access both SMEs and large employers. Employers are critical to the success of ALMPs, but an underpinning supply-side ideology and a regulatory context in which business interest associations are weak policy actors means that their involvement is based on implicit and flawed assumptions about employers’ interests and their propensity to engage.

This paper provides a critical assessment of the term ‘resilience’ – and its highly agent-centric conceptualisation – when applied to how individuals and households respond to hardship. We provide an argument for social conditions to be embedded into the framework of resilience analysis. Drawing on two different perspectives in social theory, namely the structure-agent nexus and path dependency, we aim to demonstrate that the concept of resilience, if understood in isolation from the social conditions within which it may or may not arise, can result in a number of problems. This includes misidentification of resilience, ideological exploitation of the term and inability to explain intermittence in resilience.

‘Mutual obligation’ is a deft political slogan. Morally, it evokes deep-seated intuitions about ‘fair reciprocity’ and the ‘duty of fair play’. It seems an easy slide from those intuitions to ‘mutual obligation’ policies demanding work-for-the-dole. That slide is illegitimate, however. There are many different ways to structure mutual obligation. Workfare policies, such as the Howard government's ‘Mutual Obligation Initiative’ in Australia, pick out only one among many alternative regimes that would answer equally well to our root intuitions about ‘fair reciprocity’. Other ways of structuring mutual obligations within social welfare policy are both more standard and more desirable.

Richard Titmuss's ‘The Social Division of Welfare’ has been neglected as a framework for assessing changes in social policy and society. The analytical, as opposed to the descriptive, value of the original essay becomes more evident, and more significant, when the relations between the social divisions of labour and welfare are examined in terms of the distribution of benefits and services through the public, fiscal and occupational systems; the growth and differential recognition of needs and ‘man-made’ states of dependency; the variations in the primary objectives of welfare including control; the interrelationship of the different systems and the ways in which they legitimate the existing social structure. This paper seeks to show that, combined with a consideration of power and the state, time and security and the institutions of capitalism, the ideas of the original essay encourage a more dynamic analysis of the impact of the three systems of welfare on society than has so far been attempted.

In the policy sciences the study of dissemination phenomena is usually connected to the concept of policy diffusion. In view of what has been produced using this perspective, there is every reason to develop alternative points of view. In this article we present the main features of one such alternative: the constructivist translation perspective. The translation perspective depicts policy diffusion as an imitation process, where meaning is constructed by disembedding policy ideas from their previous context and using them as models for altered political structures in a new context. The translation metaphor draws attention to the importance of a deepened problematisation of the policy concept, the personal character of the translation, and to the fact that translation processes are always tied to local contexts. Policy translation should be seen as an open, continuous process, never independent of the societal distribution of power. In this article the translation perspective is outlined and illustrated by a detailed case study of the Swedish methadone maintenance treatment programme.

Although the policy network approach has moved to the forefront of the debates around the formulation and development of policy, there is a paucity of methodological and reflexive literature which explores how policy networks and the actors within these arenas are actually studied. Researching powerful individuals within such networks generates a unique set of dilemmas and complexities for the researcher. Drawing on my experiences of researching the policy networks involved in the development of prison drugs policy, this paper provides a methodological and reflexive account of the key processes and issues involved in my research. In particular, it explores the political dimensions of the research problem and the importance of switching the research gaze from the ‘objects’ of policy to those who are in the powerful positions of ‘making’ policy. In order to understand the interactions within the policy process, it is argued that the qualitative approach offers distinct advantages in studying policy networks. The paper examines my attempts to uncover and understand the role and influence of policy networks in the development of prison drugs policy and the ways in which I grappled with the dilemmas of access, knowledge and power which emerged during the course of the fieldwork. Although the importance of transparent methodologies and reflexivity are highlighted, the paper concludes by suggesting that the resistance on the part of researchers to providing such accounts is related to the pressures and constraints of the current academic climate.

The distinctive character of the unemployment policies overhaul, known as the ‘activation turn’ of the 1990s, was that OECD governments intensified coercion against unemployed individuals while relaxing their commitment to ensuring full employment. By now supply-side activation policies have been tested long enough to permit conclusive evaluations, and the article surveys the body of empirical assessments to determine the achievements of the activation turn. The implementation of welfare-to-work policies has not resulted in bringing down the rates of unemployment (independently of the business cycle), combating long-term unemployment, reducing (in-work) poverty or empowering jobseekers as consumers of public services, which were all goals of the reformed ‘activating state’. Instead, activation has been working as a mechanism of entrapment at the margins of liberalised labour markets by dint of its complementarity with employer-centred flexibility. The activation turn has thus failed to achieve its direct labour market and social objectives. However, it has produced pronounced indirect negative effects in the labour market, and its social impact has been regressive and repressive, as anticipated in normative and political-economic critiques of the rising ‘workfare state’.