Despite calls for better support to empower people when reassessing their housing in later life, two recent literature reviews highlight a paucity of research on the efficacy of such services. This article reports a qualitative realist evaluation on the efficacy of a UK telephone service providing information on specialist housing to older people. The findings of thirty-one realist interviews with sixteen older people are presented. Information-seekers’ existing tenure (social tenant or private owner-occupier/renter) shaped their experience and utilisation of support. Broadly, however, information was considered too ‘light touch’ to empower older people. However, the widely recognised lack of accessible housing options and reports of non-transparent and unresponsive market practices were also key factors. This study underlines the widely acknowledged need to increase the supply of specialist housing, and recommends that housing options support be reflective of market conditions and be more substantive – including discussion, deliberation, education and advocacy.

This article examines the limitations of the gender mainstreaming discourse regarding the issue of childcare by women in South Korea, an area of responsibility that was transferred from the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) to the Ministry of Gender Equality (MGE)1 in 2003. Through employing a discursive institutionalism approach, this article articulates that whilst the gender mainstreaming discourse has been interpreted at the surface level of politics, it has been formulated differently behind the scenes due to various policy interests. I argue that the discourse has remained at the level of superficial political rhetoric with underdeveloped understanding about the relationship between childcare and gender, thus retaining a stereotypical view of women as caregivers.

The Scotland Act 2016 devolved powers over eleven social security benefits (including Carer’s Allowance) providing Scotland with some, albeit limited, opportunity to differentiate itself in terms of welfare policy progressivity. The Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 set out the strategy for supporting those who limit their employment or educational enrolment due to the responsibility of caring for an adult or child with a health condition. Using a microsimulation of Scottish data from the Family Resource Survey, this article explores the potential impact, on income and poverty rates of carer households, of raising the level of CA by various amounts and by changing the eligibility criteria. It concludes that, while the Scottish Government’s ambitions are too modest to fully support their progressive rhetoric, or to change the overall income inequality landscape, the reforms in targeted policy do make a substantial difference to the lived experience to carers in poverty and, by extension, to the receipt of that care.

This article examines public attitudes towards two reform options for the defined-contribution (DC) Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) scheme in Hong Kong: (i) increasing MPF contributions; or (ii) introducing a universal pension partly funded by switching MPF contributions to the universal pension. Drawing on a phone survey conducted with 975 active contributors to the MPF, we examine whether agreement with these MPF reform options can be explained by respondents’ self-interest, attachment to different welfare ideologies, their level of confusion with the MPF, uncertainty about future MPF income, and trust in the Hong Kong government to deal with MPF issues. This research identifies that it is uncertainty with future MPF income and low trust in the Hong Kong government to deal with MPF issues that have the most significant effect on respondents’ MPF reform preferences. Mainstream accounts of the effect of liberalist, universalist, conservative, and familistic welfare ideologies are only partially confirmed.

The article reviews the limited existing social policy literature on taxation and sets out a case for the incorporation of the study of taxation into the accepted remit of social policy. Social policy has historically been concerned with the services and benefits which flow from public expenditure, and people’s experiences of them, rather than with taxation, and the contributions by individual researchers have tended to remain marginal to the main focus of social policy. The article offers a speculative account as to why taxation has remained peripheral to social policy and presents three arguments for the mainstreaming of tax in social policy’s domain of study. These concern the role of taxation in shaping the distribution of resources, a fundamental pre-occupation of social policy; the contribution social policy scholars can make to shaping a new discourse surrounding taxation, foregrounding issues of equity and need; and how social policy’s engagement with taxation can influence the politics of the welfare state.

Tax is traditionally viewed as the main funding mechanism for government spending. Consequently, social policy is often seen as something determined and constrained by tax revenue. Modern Monetary Theory (‘MMT’) presents a reversal of the tax-spend cycle, by identifying a spend-tax cycle. Using the UK as an example, we highlight that one of MMT’s most important, but under-explored, contributions is its potential to re-frame the role of tax from both a macroeconomic and social policy perspective. We use insights on the money removal, or cancellation function of taxes, derived from MMT, to demonstrate how this also creates possibilities for using tax to achieve social objectives such as mitigating income and wealth inequality, increasing access to housing, or funding a Green New Deal. For social policy researchers the challenge arising is to use these insights to re-engineer tax systems and redesign social tax expenditures (STEs) for creative social policy purposes.

This article presents the results from a cumulative impact assessment of the distribution of tax and social security reforms in the UK since the 2010 general election. The analysis covers the 2010-15 and 2015-17 parliaments plus measures announced in the Autumn 2017 Budget. The article finds that taken as a whole, reforms since 2010 have had a regressive impact across the household income distribution, with average losses of around 10 per cent of net income in the bottom fifth of the distribution, compared to roughly a zero impact in the top three deciles. I also analyse results by a number of Equality Act protected characteristics including ethnicity, disability, gender, single/couple status and the number of children in the household. Lone parent families lose out more than any other demographic group while Pakistani and Bangladeshi adults lose out more than any other ethnic group. The reforms also have particular negative impacts on disabled people, on low income women and on households with children.

The ways that social spending policies are run by fiscal welfare through the tax system remain relatively neglected, while the costs and impact of public expenditure are constantly under scrutiny. Mostly means-enhancing in contrast to much means-tested public spending, the costs of social tax reliefs are little examined, their distributional impact even less so. This article considers what is needed to provide a better basis for the development of robust and flexible policies for establishing, managing and evaluating fiscal welfare that can contribute to building a more open and equal society. Particular attention is given to increasing accountability and assessing tax and public spending activities together when they benefit the same target group; and to reducing inconsistencies of treatment in comparable tax and public schemes.

The provision of taxation relief to support pension savings has become a large and expensive aspect of the welfare state in many countries. Among OECD member states this exceeds $200 billion in revenue forgone each year. Previous research has consistently found this fiscal welfare to have pronounced regressive distributive outcomes. However, little is known about the gendered impact of these fiscal welfare supports, a void this article addresses. Using data for Ireland the article finds that the current structure of fiscal welfare supports notably favours males over females. Nominal contribution levels are higher among males, and males are more likely to be active contributors to pension savings. The associated tax supports are consequently skewed, with two-thirds received by men and one-third by women. This outcome suggests a continuation of the gender earnings gap into retirement and a discontinuity between longevity expectations and tax policy supports for pension provision.