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.

Poverty and inequality appear to be intractable features of rich industrialised nations. It is a great paradox that despite rising prosperity in most advanced industrialised countries over the last two or three decades, poverty and inequality have remained stubbornly high and have even increased in the majority of rich countries (OECD, 2008, 2011). The United Kingdom and Japan are no exceptions to these trends. Despite having markedly different historical trajectories, there is evidence that the two societies are converging on the issue of these pressing social problems.

This themed section has at its heart reflections on the development of policy of, and for, information in health and social care over the last ten years in both the UK and Australia. It addresses a set of concerns often overlooked within social policy, namely the use of information and information systems as tools by organisations, policy makers and practitioners in the modernisation or transformation of public services, including in this case health and social care. Not long ago, in both countries, information was perceived as a panacea for the problems of integrating care services between health and social care organisations and these organisations and the patient, client or user of services. The authors focus upon England and Australia and contrast them briefly with other countries in Europe where the state plays a range of roles in the provision of health and social care.

Discussion of welfare regimes and welfare state ideal types continues to dominate comparative social policy analysis, but the focus of the debate has expanded considerably since the publication of Esping-Andersen's (1990) groundbreaking The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Shifts in this debate have been prompted by a mixture of theoretical and empirical concerns raised by comparative social policy scholars, but they have also resulted from a more general internationalisation of social policy research agendas within the academy too. In particular, there has been a strong desire to expand the scope of the debate to encompass nations and regions not included in Esping-Andersen's initial study of just eighteen high income OECD states.

China's welfare system has been a typical ‘residual welfare regime’, but the economic reform and market-oriented transformations in recent decades have weakened the original well-balanced ‘residual’ and ‘needs’ pattern. Marketisation of social welfare has intensified social inequality as those who are less competitive in the market-oriented economy have encountered tremendous financial burdens in meeting their welfare needs. In order to rectify the social problems and tensions generated from the process of marketisation of social welfare, the Chinese government has adopted different policy measures to address the pressing welfare demands from the citizens. This article examines how a local government in Guangzhou, capital city of Guangdong province, has responded to the call of the central government in promoting social harmony in the context of growing welfare regionalism emerging in mainland China. More specifically, with reference to a case study of Guangzhou, this article discusses how Guangzhou residents assess their social welfare needs and expectations, and how they evaluate the municipal government's major welfare strategies. It also reflects upon the role of the state in welfare provision and social protection, especially when many social welfare and social services have been marketised in the last few decades in China.

Establishing what constitutes ‘need’ has been a long-standing tradition in empirical investigations of poverty. In their pioneering Poor Britain study, Joanna Mack and Stewart Lansley (1985) developed the ‘consensual’ or ‘socially perceived deprivation’ approach. This sought the views of ordinary people (as opposed to academics or professional experts) in determining the necessities of life. Their approach subsequently provided the basis for further UK poverty surveys, as well as studies in other counties in Europe, Australasia, Africa and Asia. Despite this international proliferation, comparative analyses examining public perceptions of need across different societies and cultures remain sparse. This article presents findings from the first Japanese–UK comparative study based on nationally representative surveys informed by Mack and Lansley's approach. It compares the necessities of life in the two societies, examining differences as well as common socially perceived needs, and explores two possible explanations accounting for the variations found. In doing this, the article seeks to contribute to international debates on public attitudes towards the necessities of life.

This review article offers a brief comparative overview of approaches to the application of public sector information systems in England and Australia, with particular reference to health and social care. Since the 1990s, reforms to the public sector in both countries have looked to information and communication technologies (ICTs) from the private sector as the key to modern, citizen-centred services. These efforts have been conducted in the wider context of New Public Management, with the emphasis on the marketisation of government services, reducing the size of the state, and improvements in efficiency. Both countries are typically seen as being at, or near, the forefront of the digital transformation of public services (United Nations, 2012; McLoughlin and Wilson, 2013). Moreover, there is a shared history of experimentation, most recently in the shaping of the information agendas around records and personalisation.

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.

There is widespread consensus that current healthcare costs are unsustainable, and that efficiencies could be achieved by reorganising care and making greater use of information technology, in particular nationally available electronic health records. Such approaches have, however, been difficult to implement, partly because incentives for uptake are weak. In this article we argue that the difficulties go deeper than calculations of costs and benefits, and include disruptions to the complex moral orders that surround the production and exchange of health information. Using the introduction of national electronic health records in England and Australia as examples, we show how attempts to reshape and transfer distributions of rights and responsibilities developed in the age of paper into the digital world go awry. We suggest that a fundamental rethinking of the role of ‘records’ in healthcare may be an integral component of the moral re-ordering required to transform health care through such means.

Minimum Income Standard (MIS) research involves an innovative methodology that combines consensual decisions made through discussion by members of the public, supported by input from experts. MIS addresses questions about income adequacy, and in particular, what is the income that people need in order to reach a minimum socially acceptable standard of living. The first MIS for Britain was published in the UK in 2008, and in 2010 researchers from Japan and the UK began to collaborate on developing a comparable Minimum Income Standard for Japan. This article discusses the differences and similarities between the UK and Japanese MIS. It looks at the challenges of applying the methodology in a very different setting and compares the results of the research in the UK and in Japan. Although there are notable differences in the lists of goods and services that comprise the budgets, there are also some striking similarities. This research suggests that the MIS methodology offers an approach that can be used in different countries to inform discussions on contemporary living standards and societal norms, and to enable international comparisons to be drawn.

Since 2003 the rapid development of China's social policy has aroused much academic interest. This research places the development of social policy in China's political and economic context, focusing on the changing role of the state in making and implementing social policy. Based on the policy paradigm theory, this article builds up a framework to analyse the shift of social policy paradigms in post-Mao China, examining the changing role of the Chinese state in social welfare and social development. It argues that China's latest round of social policy expansion was driven by the social problems accumulated during the economic reforms, with change triggered by the SARS crisis, and its shape finally determined by the central political leadership led by Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao in a top-down manner.

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.

Social care policy is actively promoting integrated and personalised care. Local organisations are starting to re-engineer their business processes, review front line practice, develop new operational tools and revise their information systems to support and deliver these new approaches. This article draws on a study undertaken in one local organisation as it began to implement its response to these expectations. It uses structuration theory to explore how the macro agendas described by policy and legislation are translated into local perspectives and then further refracted through the lens of operational practice, shaping the business tools which deliver the change. The evidence suggests that there needs to be a better understanding of how the expectations of policy are interpreted – and potentially distorted – through their translation into local practice, and of the role that information and information services play in enabling, or disabling the delivery of those expectations at the front line.

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.

Despite their geographical proximity, and similarities in ethnic composition and political contexts, Hong Kong's and Macao's social policies have not been compared in the literature. This article aims to compare the welfare regimes between these two city-states. The comparison involves two dimensions: the pattern of welfare mix, and the modification impact of social policy on the capitalist social structure. It is found that the two states’ patterns of welfare mix have much in common, and their social policies are both marked by a relatively low level of modification impact. Therefore, the conclusion is drawn that Hong Kong and Macao can be grouped into a distinct welfare regime. The major contributions of this study are that it helps add to the understanding of East Asian social policy and suggests a useful framework for comparing welfare regimes.

This article builds on recent work entitled The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett suggesting that Japan is one of the most harmonious affluent countries in the world, whereas the United Kingdom (UK) is one of the most unequal and hence disharmonious. In particular, the article revisits The Spirit Level evidence according to which Japan is a more equitable society in terms of income than any other industrialised country, but especially contrasts with a country such as the UK. The article provides a brief review of appropriate data in both Japan and the UK that could be used for the analysis of income inequality and identifies the best available microdata that would be most suitable for this purpose: the Japanese National Survey of Family Income and Expenditure microdata and the UK Family Resources Survey and Household Below Average Income survey microdata. It then presents a comparative analysis of income inequality measures in Japan and the UK and a discussion of the income distribution in both countries based on these data sets over the past twenty years. The findings suggest that the UK is much more unequal than Japan in terms of income distribution.

In the context of the discussion about the governance capacity of small states in the world market raised by Katzenstein, the case of East Asian newly industrialised countries is an interesting one. This article takes the development of social policy in Taiwan as a case study through which to explore the role of social policy in the process of rapid industrialisation in small states. It is argued that in the initial phase of industrialisation the productive component of social policy was highlighted by the developmental state to serve the goal of economic development. Social policy functioned at this stage as an effective instrument to dampen the cost of labour and thus contributed to the low-cost strategy of developmental state. Since the 1980s, however, social policy has been profoundly transformed as a consequence of economic globalisation on the one hand and domestic democratisation on the other. It is argued that social policy making since the 1990s in Taiwan has shifted in emphasis from the productive to the consumptive component. Finally, it is suggested that three factors will be decisive in determining Taiwan's social policy in the future: limited governmental revenues, fiscal strain due the public debt problem and the steering capacity of minority governments.

Japan recently introduced a universal child benefit, but its life has been short lived mainly because of the Tsunami and financial problems as well as political conflict over the principles. Meanwhile the Coalition government in the UK, as part of its deficit reduction strategy, has frozen child benefit for three years and taken it back from higher rate tax payers. All other working age family benefits are being cut in real terms. In both countries, state support for families with children is in disarray. This article explores the evolution of the child benefit packages in both countries since 1992. It is based on model family analysis which enables comparison of policies to be made on a consistent basis. It reviews the consequences of these and other changes in the policy package for lone parent and couple families.

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

Client and patient-centred care have become watchwords in policies to transform social and health care systems in both Australia and the UK. In this article we argue that much of the success of moves towards client-centred social care will rest on the creation of appropriate informational environments to support new conversations between clients and those who commission and provide care services. We draw upon original research within an existing state-level insurance-based scheme covering citizens who acquire a disability in transport accidents to illustrate the problems faced by the absence of such a framework. We highlight some of the insights emerging from our work concerning the challenge of developing appropriate informational environments to support client-centred care and indicate the potential of co-design when focused on new conversations of care.