It is a widespread assumption that the interface between social assistance and the labour market implies an incentive structure that hinders people to work. This incentive structure is known as the unemployment trap. In particular within economics it is seen as a matter of course influencing the debate on labour market and social welfare reform. In contrary to these dominant discourses, we take the unemployment trap-theorem as a hypothesis to be tested empirically. We focus on the case of German social assistance (Sozialhilfe) by analysing data from the Social Assistance Calendar from the German Socio Economic Panel (GSOEP), a longitudinal data set, recorded by the Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW). The data are analysed by using approaches of the Event History Analysis, yielding results that clearly contradict the unemployment trap-theorem: Most people re-enter the labour market after a relatively short period of receiving Sozialhilfe. This is the starting point for asking for the recipients’ reasons for their labour market decisions by analysing 26 interviews with recipients of Sozialhilfe in Cologne and Leipzig.

After two decades of growing expectations that the UK voluntary (or ‘third’) sector will expand its social policy role, the spotlight is now focusing on specific types of voluntary organisations including community groups, black and minority ethnic associations and ‘faith-based organisations’. This article notes the growing cross-party interest in the UK in religious organisations and then presents findings from two recent empirical studies of the UK Jewish voluntary sector; one on financial resources and the other on governance. We discuss the implications of our findings for a possible expanded social policy role for faith-based organisations in the UK.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced in the autumn of 2001 that he wanted to extend individual consumer choice in the public services (Blair, 2001). What do we know from recent experience about the conditions under which such policies can be sustained? In this article, the experience of individual consumer choice over the last ten, and in some cases, fifteen years, is compared across nine fields of British public services. The article identifies the policy goals for introducing choice, considers how far they were typically achieved, and identifies problems and unintended side-effects, including distributional problems, inefficiencies and one type of political risk. This provisional evaluation is based on a widely ranging review of literature spanning several disciplines. The principal products of the argument are two detailed tables, setting out, respectively, the degree to which the goals seem to have been achieved for each choice programme, as far as the available literature can tell us, and how far distributional, efficiency and political risk problems have dogged consumer choice in each field. In the discussion section, trends and variations are summarised. Finally, some lessons are drawn from the comparisons, for policy makers who may be considering the further extension of consumer choice in public services.

The article critically examines the assumption implicit in the research on social solidarity and popular attitudes that institutional solidarity equates with mutual care in society. Following a review of a selection of recent empirical research on social solidarity and popular attitudes to welfare it is concluded that the evidence points to general support for welfare based on self-interest and the principle of mutual insurance rather than social altruism. The analysis proceeds by arguing that social and economic changes which have resulted in social polarisation have weakened ‘functional democracy’ (the reciprocal dependency of one social group or class on another) leading to possible ‘decivilising tendencies’ and a decline in mutual empathy. The article argues that post-emotionalism may be the result of these processes: the breakdown in mutual knowledge across the class divide; the intellectualisation of feelings; interaction based on false ‘niceness’; the manipulation of emotions. The paper concludes by suggesting that post-emotional attitudes are the by-product of government social steering towards amoral familism in social policy through the provision of a ‘vocabulary of motives’ which are negative to state welfare.

Governance is now quite widely used as a frame of analysis, although not in social policy. This article elaborates some of the different roots and usages of governance and interrogates the utility of the concept for the discipline and study of social policy. Having traced the concept's diverse origins and contemporary usages, the article goes on to develop from them a framework for the analysis of developments in public policy in the UK under New Labour. This is then applied to consider in turn the nature of the public sphere, policy-making, policy implementation and societal incorporation. This leads to a discussion of the various strengths and weaknesses of governance. The former include its direct interest in policy-making, its focus on power and the state and the fact that it can connect different levels of action and analysis. On the negative side, though, one must question to what extent a governance perspective finds social policy interesting in its own right and whether its over-riding focus on state and government leads it to residualise both social policy and society.

The image of housing as the wobbly pillar under the welfare state has been widely used in recent years, and is clearly an attractive metaphor in the present period as residualisation deepens and privatisation continues. However, this paper is concerned with the early years of the postwar welfare state, when conditions for a securely founded housing service were, arguably, more conducive than they are today. Accordingly the paper focuses on policy work in the 1940s, drawing on new research on Public Record Office files, to reveal the amount of wartime planning within Whitehall for postwar housing policy, and the extent of continuity between the pre and post 1945 periods. It is shown that under the wartime coalition government there was considerably more planning for housing after the war than is acknowledged in the existing literature, and that this work shaped policy under the Labour government of 1945–51. Housing emerged as the wobbly pillar under the welfare state because of the amount of detailed wartime planning and Labour's acceptance of its analysis and prescriptions. Whereas most accounts concentrate on the size of the late 1940s building programme (and judge the government accordingly), the argument here is that to understand how housing emerged as the wobbly pillar it is necessary to look beyond quantity to the question of why a self-proclaimed socialist government failed to challenge the market dominance of housing provision.

Welfare spending in the UK is too low to provide services at the level to which most citizens aspire. The problem is that, although most people state in surveys that they would like to pay higher taxes for better services, politicians from all the main parties generally do not believe that they would put their vote where their mouth is. Advocates of higher spending increasingly retreat to a position of promoting ear-marked taxes for specific, highly favoured services, as in the 2002 Budget plan to finance the cost of improvements in the highly valued NHS through increased National Insurance Contributions. Recent theoretical work further undermines arguments for higher state spending: an important strand in political science argues that trust in state institutions is in decline, and work in sociology claims that citizens are becoming more independent, reflexive and keen to take responsibility for meeting their own needs. This paper uses data from a recent ESRC-financed national survey to examine these arguments. It shows real support for hypothecated taxes for the NHS, and more generalised support for higher taxes for welfare provision. Such support is not undermined by a decline in citizen trust in the welfare state or by a rejection of collective solutions. However, there is little endorsement of hypothecated taxation in other areas, and the use of such measures may encourage citizens in a pick-and-mix approach to welfare services.

‘Feminist’ social policy has done an important job in developing new concepts for studying welfare state variation. But just like ‘mainstream’ social policy, gender-sensitive analyses have their blind spots. This article argues that differences in policies towards children remain an understudied area, and that developing concepts for varying policy approaches to children can increase our understanding of social political differences. Two countries – the UK and Norway – are juxtaposed in the empirical analysis, which centres on policies towards children living with one parent and the development of universal child benefits. The empirical discussion suggests that the UK traditionally has been closer to an ‘organic’ view of the family, while Norway has been closer to an ‘individual’ view. Two dimensions are highlighted: the separation of parenting and partnering for the purposes of social benefits, and the extent to which the ‘worthiness’ of the parents determine transfers to children. Both these dimensions have the potential to influence strongly distribution between families with children, as well as the legitimacy of the benefits. They should therefore be of crucial importance in comparative studies of family policy and social policy.

In 2003 the Social Policy Digest is being relaunched as a web-based publication. The aims of the Digest remain the same – to provide comprehensive coverage of events and publications across the whole social policy field. However, we hope the new website format will enable us to provide a greatly enhanced service to all Journal of Social Policy subscribers.

Encouraging individuals' adaptability to more flexible patterns of work and learning, and promoting greater self-management of employment security, are central to UK policies aiming to improve employability and social inclusion. Little is known, however, about the responses to these issues of those deemed to have employability problems. This article presents the results of a qualitative phase of research with young people not in work, education or training to determine the extent to which these policy-espoused concepts of adaptability and self-management were reflected in their attitudes and jobsearch activity. The findings indicate generally negative attitudes and avoidance in jobsearch towards working outside a traditional ideal of standard, permanent employment and also towards improving prospects by updating skills. Reasons included a disincentive to enter training or temporary work due to short-term risks to benefit status, but more significant concerns reflected the increasing problem of the ‘churning’ of low-skilled youth between work and welfare. It is argued that inconsistencies between policy dictums about how the unemployed should behave in order to receive benefits and how they should behave in order to become more employable are not conducive to long-term employability and may actually contradict the aims of ‘active’ labour market policies.

One of the acknowledged limitations of British welfare-to-work policies has been that they do not necessarily succeed in assisting people with multiple problems and needs. This article will first examine conflicting aspects of welfare-to-work policies and the conflict between welfare-to-work and the concept of work–life balance, particularly as this may apply to people whose lives are especially difficult. Secondly, the article reports on the general findings of a small-scale qualitative study of the labour market experiences of people with multiple problems and needs and, more particularly, an analysis of the discursive strategies used by participants in the study. The article concludes with some observations about how welfare-to-work might be re-conceptualised to accommodate ontological as well as practical life needs.