The Social Policy Digest is a major online resource providing up-to-date listings of developments across the whole range of UK and pan-European social policy issues – including links to source materials and commentary. The Digest is published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Social Policy Association.

This paper asks whether where someone lives bears any association with their attitudes to inequality and income redistribution, focusing on the relative contribution of neighbourhood income, density and ethnic composition. People on higher incomes showed higher support for redistribution when living in more deprived neighbourhoods. People with lower levels of altruism had higher levels of support for redistribution in neighbourhoods of higher density. People living in more ethnically mixed neighbourhoods had higher levels of support for redistribution on average, but this support declined for Whites with low levels of altruism as the deprivation of the neighbourhood increased. Current trends which sustain or extend income and wealth inequalities, reflected in patterns of residence, may undermine social cohesion in the medium- to long-term. This may be offset to some extent by trends of rising residential ethnic diversity.

Within Europe, the Norwegian and English welfare states represent two different welfare regimes. Due to common demographic challenges of an ageing population as well as grass- roots pressures, particularly from disabled people, significant changes in the delivery of long-term care services for older and disabled people have taken place. This article focuses on the change towards personalisation policies encouraging greater choice and control in regard to care services, and uses the case of ‘cash-for-care’, which gives people an allocation of funding to meet their needs, to discuss conditions and implications of personalisation policies within different contexts. Based on a theoretical framework exploring a democratic and a market discourse of personalisation policies, the article provides a comparative analysis of the Norwegian and English cash-for-care schemes. While a crucial common change in the public sector's role towards at-arm’s-length long-term care services occurred, significant differences remain: while English residents are given greater choice and control from the beginning of the allocation of cash-for-care they also face more insecure circumstances due to the simultaneously stimulated care provider market. The Norwegian case, however, shows a possibility of increasing choice and control without a large diversity in a care provider market.

During the 1990s’ welfare reforms in China, which highlighted budgetary cuts and decentralisation, local governments in Taizhou, Zhejiang Province, placed self-financing elders in public welfare homes or sent the ‘Three Nos’ (no children, no income and no relatives) elders on public assistance to the emerging non-governmental elder institutions, so as to strategise their public spending. Using ethnographic data collected at the reformed mixed elder homes, this article examines how physical, social and cultural boundary work is constructed and maintained during the everyday interactions of the paying elders and the public clients on welfare. The self-financing customers, through their efforts of distinction, stigmatise the ‘Three Nos’ elders as incompetent, irresponsible and dependent individuals of low quality, and condemn their incompatibility with the regional market prosperity. The elders on public welfare, although marginalised at the institutions, adopt the ideals of collectivity, equality and reciprocity under state socialism as their persistent yet weak resistance. While previous research hails the welfare reforms for introducing diverse funding mechanisms and innovative service models, this study of the antagonistic boundary work at mixed welfare institutions calls for an assessment of the class hierarchy and social inequality that have appeared in the post-reform era.

As has been the case in a number of countries, parents in England have increasingly been given the opportunity to choose between different types of schools. Doing so is regarded as a way of meeting individual needs and improving academic standards. Faith-based schools long predate this move towards a more diversified educational system, but have come to be regarded as one of the ways of fulfilling the recent agenda. Drawing on social identity theory, we suggest that attitudes towards faith-based schools reflect social (religious) identities and group interests associated with those identities rather than beliefs about the merits of individual choice. We demonstrate this is the case using data from all four parts of the UK. However, the extent to which attitudes towards faith-based schools are a reflection of religious identities varies across the four parts in line with the structure of the religious economy and educational provision locally. We conclude that rather than reflecting a supposedly a-social concern with choice, support for diversity of educational provision may be rooted instead in collective – and potentially antagonistic – social identities.

Through the lens of Institutional Entrepreneurship, this paper discusses how governments use the levers of power afforded through business and welfare systems to affect change in the organisational management of older workers. It does so using national stakeholder interviews in two contrasting economies: the United Kingdom and Japan. Both governments have taken a ‘light-touch’ approach to work and retirement. However, the highly institutionalised Japanese system affords the government greater leverage than that of the liberal UK system in changing employer practices at the workplace level.

Earner–carer policy models aiming at the engagement of mothers and fathers in both paid and unpaid work are a hallmark of the Nordic welfare states. But they have not become uncontested policy equilibriums. Examining family policy development through the theoretical lenses of party competition and incremental change helps uncover underlying tensions and ongoing struggles. In contrast to convergence and stability in regard to moderately long parental leave at high replacement rates and in the provision of universal publicly-funded childcare services, daddy quotas, i.e., earmarked leave for fathers, and cash-for-care benefits are contested and in flux. Policy stability is associated with layering of policy elements that satisfy multiple policy rationales, elements that are also vital in working parents’ organisation of everyday life. By contrast, the main source of instability, including policy displacement, is party competition over values of ‘equal parenthood’ versus ‘parental choice’, largely following a left–right divide.

The debate on privatisation is central to social policy, yet it tends to generate more heat than light as definitions and operationalisations of ‘privatisation’ are often implicit, unclear and conflicting. This paper aims to explore the extent of privatisation in the NHS over three periods of government through the lens of three approaches of Mixed Economy of Welfare, Wheels of Welfare and Publicness. All have two dimensions of provision and finance in common, but Mixed Economy of Welfare and Publicness stress the third dimension, that of regulation, while Wheels of Welfare stresses decision. All three approaches agree that some policies in the NHS constitute privatisation, but there is some disagreement largely stemming from their differential stress on regulation or decision. It is important to introduce a degree of transparency in the debate which provides clear definitions and rationales. However, all approaches require further development which focuses on the important but neglected point of how different types of privatisation lead to different impacts on patients.

In the context of the new automatic enrolment requirements for all eligible employees to make pension provision for their employees, and the importance of trust in pension provision, this article utilises data from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, which, in its 2005 wave, asked correspondents specific questions regarding pension provision. We integrate two different empirical approaches in order to achieve a more robust understanding of pension confusion in Scotland. We find that pension confusion is dominated by pension uncertainty and myopia, but these may be reduced for those working in the financial sector. We consider the implications of these findings for the relationship of trust between employers and their employees, as well as for trust in government pension policy more generally.

Several studies have shown that attitudes toward social policy are influenced by expectations of social mobility at the individual level and perceptions of social fluidity at the aggregate level. If individuals think of inequalities as the result of inherited disadvantages, they will be more willing to distribute resources from the rich to the poor. However, one important question remains open: How do individuals perceive the distribution of opportunities in society? In this paper we argue that individuals believe a society to be fair if opportunities for reaching the top of the social ladder are equally distributed among the population. That is, the distribution of resources is fair to the extent that individual outcomes do not depend on social origins. To address this issue, we asked a representative sample of individuals in the Spanish region of Andalusia what they think the chances are for persons of different social origins to achieve a high social status. We have found that those who think the chances for reaching the top are unequally distributed are those who support greater government responsibility and oppose meritocracy and competition, as they believe the initial distribution of opportunities to be unfair.

This study explores how interactions between frontline welfare service delivery employees and recipients are seen to affect welfare recipients’ capabilities. Seventeen employees and fifty-two welfare recipients from the Australian Department of Human Services were interviewed regarding their service delivery experiences. Interviews were transcribed and participants’ descriptions of the outcomes achieved from welfare service delivery interactions were analysed to determine the major themes. Burchardt and Vizard's (2007) capability list captured many of the effects described by participants, particularly the capability domains labelled ‘Individual, family and social life’, ‘Education and learning’, ‘Standard of living’, ‘Health’ and ‘Productive and valued activities’. Other outcomes were described by participants that might represent early indicators of positive or negative impact. Our findings suggest that welfare service delivery can both promote and impair capability development for welfare recipients.