This article examines whether the population of Scotland would set a different poverty standard compared with the rest of the UK. It is based on research on a consensual or democratic poverty measure, defined by majority views of the items or activities which should be considered the ‘necessities of life’. The article explores whether majority opinions are the same in Scotland as in the rest of the UK. More generally, it explores how attitudes differ north and south of the border, and possible reasons for this. Data on attitudes were collected through three closely related surveys in 2011 and 2012. The analysis suggests that, in the early years at least, a more independent Scotland would be unlikely to set a different social minimum. On this topic, as on many others, attitudes in Scotland are very similar to those in the rest of the UK.

This article examines the distribution of net benefits from subsidies to higher education in the United Kingdom, focusing on the system in place in the mid-1990s. We find the distribution to be regressive with respect to graduate income, with high lifetime earners receiving large net subsidies, while low lifetime earners are net contributors to the system. Our findings are of particular relevance to policymakers in the UK in light of the ongoing debate over tuition fees. However, these results should also be of interest to anyone who studies the socioeconomic implications of higher education.

Over the last decade there has been a clear focus on tackling disadvantage and transforming lives. A plethora of programmes such as Family Intervention Projects, Think Families Pathfinders and Intensive Intervention Projects have focussed on families meeting centrally determined quantifiable outcomes and have used this as a factor to judge the success or otherwise of intervention programmes. However, little attention, or indeed value, has been given to the learning that young people experience throughout the intervention period. The article argues that learning is a crucial component of intervention projects. Qualitative evidence from a longitudinal study is used to explore young people's engagement with an Intensive Intervention Programme. Using individual experiences, evidence suggests that continuous learning during engagement with Intensive Intervention Projects can lead to soft outcomes which enable future positive change in the lives of individuals.

This article provides insights into how the concept of vulnerability operates in welfare and disciplinary processes for young people who are considered ‘vulnerable’. It reports from empirical qualitative research conducted in a large city in England which included interviews with vulnerable young people and with professionals working with this group. Findings highlight that despite differences of opinion about what constitutes ‘vulnerability’, it is a popular and powerful conceptual mechanism which underpins the delivery of service interventions for certain young people. A relationship between vulnerability and ‘transgression’ is revealed, calling into question dichotomous representations of young people as either ‘vulnerable victims’ or ‘dangerous wrong-doers’. It is argued that whilst it can be utilised in the pursuit of more ‘caring’ interventions with those who are seen to be ‘in need’, vulnerability is also a concept relevant to debates concerning selective welfare systems and behavioural regulation.

In Australia financial counselling has emerged as an important component of policy responses to assist low income households and individuals in financial stress. However, the evidence on its effectiveness in alleviating or resolving debt-related issues is patchy. This article contributes much-needed empirical evidence on its impact on low income households and presents the results of a recent national study of financial counselling clients in Australia. The research findings demonstrate the complex factors contributing to financial stress and the effectiveness of financial counselling in providing positive outcomes on a range of measures, including debt resolution, financial capability and health and wellbeing, and highlight the importance of early intervention. From a policy perspective, the study points to the importance of having a mix of strategies to address financial stress in low income earners that combine approaches based on individual responsibility and models based on social justice and advocacy.

This themed section discusses the conceptual development and related empirical applications of social innovation (SI), a concept acquiring a prominent position in both academia and the world of policy. When SI started being used in the early 1990s relatively few social scientists were familiar with it, mainly those interested in urban policy. Less than two decades later, not only is SI at the heart of the largest public research funding programme in Europe (Horizon 2020), it is also constantly referred to in the discourses of senior level policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Over the past few years there has been a growing interest on the part of the scientific community (and, more recently, of policymakers) in the concept of social innovation. The notion of social innovation is particularly appealing in light of the difficulties facing traditional welfare systems and, more broadly, a development model that is finding it increasingly difficult to meet the growing and diversified needs of society. However, the uses and definitions of the concept are so disparate that it is becoming increasingly difficult to assess whether social innovation is in fact a helpful construct or just another fad that will soon be forgotten. This article focuses in particular on the usefulness of the concept of social innovation for the purposes of policy development. Therefore, the goal is not to find the ‘true’ definition of social innovation. Rather, it is to search for a useful framework on which to build sound policies that could tackle the complex social issues that have caused scholars and practitioners to pay attention to social innovation in the first place.

This article discusses localised forms of social innovation in social services in relation to social policy and welfare issues. It draws upon research findings from the EU project ‘Welfare Innovations at the local Level in favour of Cohesion’ (WILCO), which takes in social innovations in twenty European cities. First, we argue why there is currently a significant gap between the debate on social innovation and the debate on social welfare reforms. Second, we present attempts that have been made to identify and interpret recurring approaches and instruments in the social innovations studied in relation to various dimensions of the debate on social welfare and services, such as the search for new ways of addressing users and citizens; the emphasis on new risks and related approaches to the issues of rights and responsibilities; and finally the concern with issues of governance. We argue that the features of the local innovations we identified may be significant for welfare systems at large, going beyond the introduction of special new items in special fields. However, the degree to which this will come about in reality will depend on building more bridges of shared understanding between concerns with social innovation on the one hand and welfare reforms on the other hand.

This article assesses how social innovations in the field of local domiciliary long-term care are shaped and implemented. It proposes a mapping of innovations in terms of two structuring discourses that inform welfare state reforms: a libertarian and a neo-liberal discourse. It then provides an analysis of the concrete trajectories of three local innovations for elderly people in Hamburg (Germany), Edinburgh (Scotland) and Geneva (Switzerland). Theoretically, social innovation is considered as a discursive process of public problem redefinition and institutionalisation. New coalitions of new actors are formed along this double process, and these transform the original discourse of innovation. The comparative analysis of the three processes of institutionalisation of local innovation shows that, in the context of local policy making, social innovations inspired by a libertarian critique of the welfare state undergo differentiated processes of normalisation.

This article1 analyses whether and how social innovations can be implemented in a Conservative/Bismarckian welfare regime and society such as Germany. It examines the transferability and the relevance of this discourse and practice, and argues that, due to existing institutional structures and cultures, innovation by public sector intrapreneurship is more significant in Germany than through social entrepreneurship. The article challenges the assumption that social innovation emerges from entrepreneurship, and questions the level of attention and importance attached to this development

The UK Government has recently implemented large-scale public-sector funding cuts and substantial welfare reform. Groups within civil society are being encouraged to fill gaps in service provision, and ‘social innovation’ has been championed as a means of addressing social exclusion, such as that caused by worklessness, a major impediment to citizens being able to access money, power and resources, which are key social determinants of health. The aim of this article is to make the case for innovative ‘upstream’ approaches to addressing health inequalities, and we discuss three prominent social innovations gaining traction: microcredit for enterprise; social enterprise in the form of Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs); and Self Reliant Groups (SRGs). We find that while certain social innovations may have the potential to address health inequalities, large-scale research programmes that will yield the quality and range of empirical evidence to demonstrate impact, and, in particular, an understanding of the causal pathways and mechanisms of action, simply do not yet exist.

Social innovation (SI) is an increasingly prominent but contested issue in discussions of social policy reform. Although not yet a familiar concept, nor widely understood (least of all by policy makers), it has entered mainstream policy discourses. However whether SI marks a significant departure in either theory or in practice, or merely in rhetoric, remains to be determined. This Review Article, and the Themed Section as a whole, aims to set out some of the questions social policy analysts should ask about SI, and to help clarify whether or not it is a significant development which merits attention. The Review begins by considering some of the reasons for the recent interest shown in SI before clarifying the meaning of the concept and outlining some of the different forms SI has taken. This discussion is followed by a consideration of some of the practical and theoretical questions which SI raises for social policy analysis. The Review concludes that social policy analysts cannot afford to ignore SI, but that the most effective contribution the discipline can make is to apply a critical empirical perspective to test the significance, value and impact of SI.