Why is China's household registration system so resilient, and why are migrant workers consistently excluded from equal urban welfare? By disaggregating the hukou and land components of the rural–urban dualist regime, this article argues that dualist land ownership, formalized in China's 1982 Constitution, perpetuates the hukou system and unequal welfare rights. On the one hand, dualist land ownership results in an abundance of low-cost, informal housing in urban villages. This reduces the cost of short-term labour reproduction and diminishes migrants’ demands for state-defined urban rights. On the other hand, dualist land ownership enables local governments to amass significant revenues from land sales. The prominence of land-based revenues prompts local governments to link urban welfare rights with formal property ownership and residency, obstructing substantive reforms to the hukou system. For comparison, this article highlights Vietnam, a communist country with a unitary land ownership system, which has made greater strides in reforming its household registration system.

Throughout the years, social policy scholars have advanced a multi-level perspective of non-take-up, viewing it as is a complex process shaped by a broad range of interacting barriers and actors. However, a comparatively small amount of that scholarship has addressed the key role of take-up agents: professionals or semi-professionals who actively help clients realise their welfare rights. Moreover, most of this scant literature has tended to focus on the agents’ impact rather than on their role and practices. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with Israeli take-up agents from the public, business, and non-profit sectors, this study seeks to understand better the work of take-up agents in realising their clients’ welfare rights. Our findings show that in order to pass their clients through the gateways of welfare, agents use four keys: knowledge, networking, emotions, and power. The meaning of these keys and related practices is discussed.

Disability assessments play a key role in welfare states but are increasingly contested, not least for their compatibility with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This paper draws on evidence of global governance and assessment practices in 34 European countries, the largest international study to date. The paper reflects on the model of disability in the CRPD and its implications for disability assessment, drawing on the work of the CRPD Committee. The paper also examines examples of promising practice in assessment in European countries and concludes by identifying elements of a CRPD-compatible approach. Disability assessments must be underpinned by both a social-contextual concept of disability and a human rights approach. Administrative attribution of disability status based on categorical diagnosis or individual functioning alone is incompatible with this approach. This approach challenges the historic individualization of disability assessments and the knowledge relationships underpinning them.

It is known that, in general, people of pensionable age have gained in income compared to other age groups in the British population over the last two decades, but that a substantial minority still experience relative poverty. This paper reports a small qualitative study into the effectiveness of a welfare-rights advice and acquisition service for men and women aged 60 or more years that was provided through a local primary health-care service. Additional financial and non-financial resources were obtained by accessing previously unclaimed state-welfare benefits. It was found that these significantly improved the participants' quality of life. Fourteen of the 25 participants received some type of financial award as a result of the service offered, with the median income gain being £57 (€84 or US $101) per week. The impact of additional resources was considerable and included: increased affordability of necessities and occasional expenses; increased capacity to cope with emergencies; and reduced stress related to financial worries. Knowledge of and access to welfare-rights services also appeared to have a positive effect. It is argued that a level of material resources above a basic level is necessary for social relations and for accessing services and civic activities, and can reduce social exclusion among older people.

This paper presents key findings of a recently completed socio-legal study of international retirement migration in the European Union (EU). It highlights the diverse nature of retirement migration and the differential citizenship status that is formally granted to various groups of retired migrants. ‘Citizenship of the European Union’ (Articles 17–22 of the Treaty establishing the European Community) bestows important social and political rights on nationals of EU Member States (‘Community nationals’). These rights are not, however, universal or based on nationality as such. In practice, the residency and social rights that a mobile EU national can claim in another Member State depend on the type of social contribution they have made and their personal relationships. Contributions through paid employment and/or membership of the family of a mobile EU worker gives rise to maximum social benefit. Whilst the European Union citizenship provisions extend residency rights to all EU nationals (irrespective of work status), those whose mobility is not connected to employment derive significantly inferior social entitlements when resident in a host Member State. Put simply, the rights of people (and members of their family) who move following retirement in their home country differ substantially from those who retire following a period of working in another Member State (and achieve the status of ‘community migrant worker’ prior to retirement). This formal ‘discrimination’ is further compounded by the diversity of the social welfare systems of the member states that results in distinct social, economic and spatial inequalities across the EU. To that extent, the ‘choice’ of retirement location significantly impacts on citizenship status. However, retired migrants are not merely passive spectators of formal rights and policies. Many show considerable skill in actively managing their rights (at both national and EU levels) and other resources to optimise personal benefit. This ability to maximise wellbeing is unevenly distributed.