Unemployment and unemployment policy in the UK:

Standard accounts of unemployment protection and labour market policy reform tend to put France and the UK at opposing ends of the spectrum of values and policy directions in Europe. British efforts in the 1990s of switching emphasis from ‘passive’ benefit payment towards promoting participation in ‘active’ programmes of labour market integration are widely understood as a product of liberalism, individualism and increasing labour market flexibility, introducing a degree of workfare into the overall structure of unemployment support. By contrast, in France the resistance of traditional values and a ‘social treatment of unemployment’ are often portrayed as having put a brake on labour market reform and retrenchment of unemployment protection. After a reflection on the respective national discourses, the article challenges this view and points to a more complex reality that includes not only acknowledgement of labour market differences but also trends of convergence and counterintuitive developments. Secondly, it claims that in the 1990s Britain and France have both moved increasingly towards an unemployment policy based on activation, but in forms which reflect, to a great extent, different political incentive structures. The political implications of differentially institutionalised interests have in this way driven unemployment policy in different, but not opposing, directions. Recognition of this more nuanced reality should enable a better theoretical understanding of the social and political conditions for successful activation policies.

Download Full-text

Bossing or Protecting? The Integration of Social Regulation into the Welfare State

The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science ◽

10.1177/0002716220953758 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 691 (1) ◽

pp. 104-120

Author(s):

Philipp Trein

Keyword(s):

Welfare State ◽

Migration Policy ◽

The United States ◽

Social Regulation ◽

Noncommunicable Diseases ◽

Welfare Regimes ◽

Policy Reforms ◽

The Uk ◽

Unemployment Policy ◽

The Welfare State

This article is an empirical analysis of how social regulation is integrated into the welfare state. I compare health, migration, and unemployment policy reforms in Australia, Austria, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the United States from 1980 to 2014. Results show that the timing of reform events is similar among countries for health and unemployment policy but differs among countries for migration policy. For migration and unemployment policy, the integration of regulation and welfare is more likely to entail conditionality compared to health policy. In other words, in these two policy fields, it is more common that claimants receive financial support upon compliance with social regulations. Liberal or Continental European welfare regimes are especially inclined to integration. I conclude that integrating regulation and welfare entails a double goal: “bossing” citizens by making them take up available jobs while expelling migrants and refugees for minor offenses; and protecting citizens from risks, such as noncommunicable diseases.

Download Full-text

Policy Change in Direct Government Responses to UK Unemployment

Journal of Public Policy ◽

10.1017/s0143814x00005961 ◽

1983 ◽

Vol 3 (3) ◽

pp. 301-330 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Jeremy Moon

Keyword(s):

Policy Change ◽

Policy Innovation ◽

British Government ◽

Policy Area ◽

Study Programme ◽

Strategic Position ◽

Direct Government ◽

The Uk ◽

Employment Subsidy ◽

Unemployment Policy

ABSTRACTThis article examines the patterns of policy change in the field of direct responses to unemployment in the UK. After discussing the nature of the policy area, the article proceeds to identify instances of policy innovation, persistence, succession and termination under the headings of Job Creation, Employment Subsidy, Training, and Youth. As this is a relatively new problem for British government there are several cases of policy innovation, but the most striking finding is of a high number of policy successions. Discussion is then focused upon the relevance of a range of factors which might explain the patterns of policy change deduced, suggesting that the most important of these have been (i) ‘symbolic pay offs’ of policy change; (ii) the in-built terminators in most special employment measures; (iii) the nature and strategic position of the unemployment policy community; (iv) changing cabinet objectives. It is concluded, despite the several problems of this form of analysis pin-pointed, that in this study programme changes were generally good indicators of policy change, providing a useful over-view of this important sphere of government policy.

Download Full-text