Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:30:53.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Approaches to Employability in the UK: Combining ‘Human Capital Development’ and ‘Work First’ Strategies?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2007

COLIN LINDSAY ,
RONALD W. McQUAID  and
MATTHEW DUTTON
COLIN LINDSAY
Affiliation:
Employment Research Institute, Napier University Business School, Craiglockhart Campus, Edinburgh EH14 1DJ email: c.lindsay@napier.ac.uk
RONALD W. McQUAID
Affiliation:
Employment Research Institute, Napier University Business School, Craiglockhart Campus, Edinburgh EH14 1DJ email: r.mcquaid@napier.ac.uk
MATTHEW DUTTON
Affiliation:
Employment Research Institute, Napier University Business School, Craiglockhart Campus, Edinburgh EH14 1DJ email: m.dutton@napier.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyses recent developments in policies to promote the employability of unemployed and economically inactive people in the UK. It discusses the extent to which these policies reflect the dominant approaches of ‘Work First’, where programmes focus mainly on compulsory job search and short-term interventions to facilitate a quick return to work, or human capital development (HCD), where programmes tailor services to promote longer-term skills and personal development. Specifically, the article reports on case-study research into two recent pilot initiatives: Working Neighbourhoods (which targeted a range of intensive services in neighbourhoods characterised by high levels of inactivity) and Pathways to Work (which combines employability services and cognitive behaviour therapy-type approaches to help clients to manage health problems). While both pilots have retained strong Work First features, they potentially represent a shift towards a more HCD-oriented approach, through the delivery of more holistic ‘coping and enabling’ services. However, there remain concerns that, as with previous progressive policy initiatives, the positive lessons of these pilots will not be fully mainstreamed. We conclude that, if the UK is to balance Work First compulsion with high-quality services delivering progress in the labour market and HCD, a strengthening of ‘coping and enabling’ interventions is required, alongside a renewed commitment to training.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 539 - 560
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, H. and Hudson, M. 2006, Pathways to Work: Qualitative Research on the Condition Management Programme, DWP Research Report 346, London: DWP.Google Scholar
Bellamy, K. and Rake, K. 2005, Money, Money, Money: Is it Still a Rich Man's World?, London: Fawcett Society.Google Scholar
Brown, G. 2002, Speech by the Chancellor at the Urban Summit (1 November), at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/Google Scholar
Bruttel, O. 2005, ‘Are employment zones successful? Evidence from the first four years’, Local Economy, 20: 4, 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruttel, O. and Sol, E. 2006, ‘Work First as a European model? Evidence from Germany and the Netherlands’, Policy and Politics, 34: 1, 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corden, T. and Nice, K. 2006, Incapacity Benefit Reform Pilot: Findings from the Second Cohort of a Longitudinal Panel of Clients, DWP Research Report 345, London: DWP.Google Scholar
Corden, T., Nice, K. and Sainsbury, R. 2005, Incapacity Benefit Reform Pilot: Findings from a Longitudinal Panel of Clients, DWP Research Report 259, London: DWP.Google Scholar
Dean, H. 2003, ‘Reconceptualising welfare to work for people with multiple problems and needs’, Journal of Social Policy, 32: 3, 441–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, H., MacNeill, V. and Melrose, M. 2003, ‘Ready to work? Understanding the experiences of people with multiple problems and needs’, Benefits, 11: 1, 19–25.Google Scholar
Dewson, S. 2005, Evaluation of the Working Neighbourhoods Pilot: Year One, DWP Research Report 297, London: DWP.Google Scholar
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) 2005, Literacy, Numeracy and the Labour Market, London: DfES.Google Scholar
DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) 2003, The UK Employment Action Plan, London: DWP.Google Scholar
DWP 2004a, Building on New Deal: Local Solutions Meeting Individual Needs, London: DWP.Google Scholar
DWP 2004b, The UK Employment Action Plan, London: DWP.Google Scholar
DWP 2005, DWP Five Year Strategy, London: DWP.Google Scholar
DWP 2006, A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work, London: DWP.Google Scholar
European Foundation 2004, Industrial Relations in the United States 2003–4, Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.Google Scholar
Finn, D. 2003, ‘The “employment first” welfare state: lessons from the New Deal for Young People’, Social Policy and Administration, 37: 7, 709–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frogatt, W. 2006, A Brief Introduction to CBT, Hastings: New Zealand Centre for Cognitive Behaviour Therapy.Google Scholar
Handler, J. 2006, ‘Ending welfare as we know it: welfare reform in the US’, in Henman, P. and Fenger, M. (eds), Administering Welfare Reform: International Transformations in Welfare Governance, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 117–36.Google Scholar
HM Treasury 2005, Lisbon Strategy for Jobs and Growth: UK National Reform Programme, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
HM Treasury 2006, Lisbon Strategy for Jobs and Growth: UK National Reform Programme: Update on Progress, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Knight, T., Dickens, S., Mitchell, M. and Woodfield, K. 2005, Incapacity Benefit Reforms: Personal Adviser Role and Practice, London: DWP.Google Scholar
Layard, R. 2003, ‘Happiness: has social science a clue?’, Lionel Robbins Memorial Lecture 3, Centre for Economic Performance, London.Google Scholar
Layard, R. 2004, ‘Good jobs and bad jobs’, Centre for Economic Performance Working Paper 19, London.Google Scholar
Lindsay, C and Mailand, M. 2004, ‘Different routes, common directions? Activation policies for young people in Denmark and the UK’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 13: 3, 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lødemel, I. and Trickey, H. (eds) 2001, An Offer You Can't Refuse: Workfare in International Perspective, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
McQuaid, R. W. and Lindsay, C 2005, ‘The concept of employability’, Urban Studies, 42: 2, 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, J. 2000, Keeping Track of Welfare Reform: The New Deal Programmes, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
ONS (Office for National Statistics) 2006, New Deal for Young People and Long-term Unemployed aged 25+: Statistics to December 2005, London: ONS.Google Scholar
Peck, J. and Theodore, N. 2001, ‘Exporting workfare/importing welfare to work: exploring the politics of Third Way policy transfer’, Political Geography, 20: 427–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sol, E. and Hoogtanders, Y. 2005, Steering by contract in the Netherlands: new approaches to labour market integration, in Sol, E. and Westerveld, M. (eds), Contractualism in Employment Services, The Hague: Kluwer, pp. 139–66.Google Scholar
Sunley, P., Martin, R. and Nativel, C. 2006, Putting Workfare in Place: Local Labour Markets and the New Deal, Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P., Larsen, T. and Kananen, J. 2004, ‘Market means and welfare ends: the UK welfare state experiment’, Journal of Social Policy, 56: 1, 3–29.Google Scholar
Walker, R. and Wiseman, M. 2003, The Welfare We Want? The British Challenge for American Reform, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
White, M. 2000, ‘New Deal for Young People: towards an ethical employment policy?’, Policy Studies, 21: 4, 281–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar