No major reform of the welfare state has a chance of going through unless one can make a plausible case as to both its ‘ethical value’ and its ‘economic.value’, that is, that it would have a positive effect in terms of both justice and efficiency. In this essay, this rough conjecture is first presented, and its plausibility probed, on the background of some stylised facts about the rise of modern welfare states in the postwar period. Next, the focus is shifted to the current debate on the introduction of a basic income, a completely unconditional grant paid ex ante to all citizens. It is argued that if basic income is to have a chance of meeting the strong twofold condition stipulated in the conjecture, some major changes are required in the way one usually thinks about justice and efficiency in connection with social policy. But once these changes are made, as they arguably must be, the chance that basic income may be able to meet the challenge is greatly enhanced.

This paper examines the current model of sheltered housing and explores a central contradiction in that model: namely that if only those people who most need and appreciate the unique features of sheltered housing were allocated places in schemes, the existing model ultimately could not provide sufficient support. This central contradiction leads to a fundamental lack of clarity in the role of sheltered housing. This is reflected in the ambiguities apparent in allocation practices, where judgements are typically made not only in relation to the tenants' needs and demands but also in relation to the impact on schemes. Evidence is presented from a recent study of sheltered and amenity housing in Scotland, which exposes these issues and suggestions are made as to how the traditional model of sheltered housing can be made more flexible and more suited to those who need and value it most.

The shift from national insurance to employer administered, state funded Statutory Sick Pay has been discussed in terms of the privatisation of social security and its impact upon the living standards of sick-absent employees. This paper reports a survey of employers’ perceptions of the change. Many employers have seen the introduction of the scheme as an opportunity to extend control of sickness absence among workers. The new regime may be better understood as part of a process whereby the government and employers link together to manage labour in the interests of capital, rather than as the privatisation of one aspect of social security.

This essay presents the Danish Act of 1891 on old age relief as an alternative to the German social insurance approach and as a precursor to the British Act of 1908. The hypothesis is that a form of welfare provision for the elderly developed in Denmark under agricultural rather than the industrial conditions which conventional thinking usually assumes necessary for such welfare developments. The influence of the Danish scheme upon the debate in Britain is documented and discussed.