Noting limited attention by international development agencies to inequalities compared to global poverty, we ask how these two challenges have been framed in agencies’ policy publications during the past several decades. Following a recent application of algorithmic analysis to health policy narratives in the UK, we use text-mining software to compare the frequency of two alternative conceptualisations of poverty and inequality in three different document categories: the World Bank's World Development Reports, the United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP) Human Development Reports and a set of white papers by bilateral donor agencies. In a second step, we visualise each document's degree of contextual similarity in using the two conceptualisations of poverty and inequality with all documents in the same source category. We find that while references to poverty have, on average, been twice as prominent as references to inequality, conceptualisations of poverty and inequality as well as the textual contexts in which they appear differ both temporally and substantively between agencies included in our sample. We show how such agency-specific framing patterns can be leveraged politically to forge more effective social policy coalitions. We also outline follow-up research capable of capturing the politics of language underpinning our observations.

Drawing upon a qualitative exploration of the role of faith-based organisations (FBOs) in service provision for homeless people in the UK, this paper examines the ways in which the ‘faith’ in ‘faith-based’ services is articulated and experienced ‘on the ground’. It demonstrates that the ‘F’ in FBO is expressed in a myriad of nuanced ways, and that the strength of ‘coupling’ between many welfare agencies and organised religion has diminished over time such that some projects’ faith affiliation or heritage is now evident in palimpsest only. Homeless people do in fact often find it difficult to discern tangible differences between avowedly ‘faith-based’ and ‘secular’ projects, given a blurring of boundaries between the religious and the secular. These findings problematise FBO typologies, and highlight the complexity and fluidity of the very concept of ‘FBO’ itself. Certainly, they suggest that the differences between faith-based and secular provision should not be exaggerated, whilst recognising the importance of faith to the motivations of many service providers and the potential value of the (optional) ‘spiritual’ support offered by most FBOs.

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.