Access to safe, clean and affordable water is a basic human right and a global goal towards which climate change poses new challenges that heavily impact the health and wellbeing of people across the globe and exacerbate or create new inequalities. These challenges are shaped by a number of geographical and social conditions that, apart from the risks of weather-driven impacts on water, include water governance and management arrangements in place, including pricing tariffs, and the interplay of social and economic inequalities. Building on examples from Australia, Scotland and England and Wales that illustrate access to water in different types of water provision systems, and regarding to aspects of access, quality and affordability, this paper explores the types of challenges related to water poverty in the context of climate crisis and reflects on the multiple dimensions of water poverty oriented social policy at the interplay of climate change associated risks.

The marketisation of disability support driven by individualised funding brings new dilemmas for multi-agency collaboration, in particular how to provide personalised supports while remaining commercially viable. This article explores the challenges, risks and adaptations of organisations to navigate the tensions of personalisation and collaboration. Framed by street-level research and using the context of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), this article draws on interviews with twenty-eight organisational managers. Multi-agency challenges are highlighted when several providers are delivering parts of a NDIS participant’s plan, blurring organisational responsibilities and accountabilities. Interviews also revealed the paradox of organisational disconnection and organisational dependence concerning quality support provision and described the collaborative responses organisations implement to ensure their sustainability. There is commitment among organisations to build a trusted ecosystem of providers, but this is largely discretionary and there is a need for further policy mechanisms to enable organisations to negotiate a way through multi-agency dilemmas.

The pandemic declared in 2020 has implied extreme transformations. In the Argentine case, measures were announced to provide relief to the sectors defined as the most affected, within which the so-called emergency family income (EFI) was established. The EFI’s management, implementation, access and collection method underwent a digitalisation process, enabling access through official and nonofficial channels. The nonofficial channels include Facebook Groups, where the recipients of social policies exchange information, doubts and advice. This article, based on virtual ethnography, aims to explore the emotions linked to the management and perception of EFI. In particular, we address a practice that has become relevant in the aforementioned context: waiting. It has been observed that the barriers between registration and access to the EFI transfer have implied different types of waiting on the part of the receiving population. We conclude that waiting has become an operative element in the implementation of social policies.

The current article provides comparative analysis of policy capabilities in COVID-19 response in Russia and Finland by examining key challenges and impacts of the pandemic, and effects of anti-crisis socio-economic measures. It finds that the two countries adopted diverse policy responses that prioritised different segments of society with corresponding budget allocations. Such policy choice has been underpinned by pre-existing national priorities, while largely leveraging established policy legacy, institutions, and instruments within their welfare models. Russia has focused on supporting households through pro-natalist social assistance in line with its demographic concerns and persistent poverty, whereas Finland concentrated on protecting employment via social insurance and labour market interventions amid declining working-age population and labour supply. It is further suggested that improving policy capabilities via investments in comprehensive social security, welfare systems and gender-responsive policies can contribute to better development outcomes, while addressing gender power imbalances in the post-COVID-19 era.

The food bank has become a charitable safety-net for those who have been failed by the social security system in times of austerity and during the Covid-19 pandemic. In this article we evidence the rise of food banking in the context of declining social security, examining the decade of austerity in the UK and the Covid-19 period. We also contextualise the process of normalisation of food banks as a new safety-net in a reduced welfare state. We argue that the welfare state has failed to address a fundamental ‘Want’ – namely, food security.

The policy area addressing the climate crisis in the UK, ‘Net Zero’, will affect many aspects of people’s everyday life. Given that policy builds from where we are now, which for some (post austerity, and mid cost of living crisis) means in financial crisis, there is work to be done in enabling a socially inclusive Net Zero. In this article, we modify the Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix’s four forms of participation for social inclusion, drawing on the existing literature on the social risks of environmental policy, to articulate the risks of social exclusion in transition to Net Zero. This enables us to develop a ‘person-centred’ approach to understanding the risks of Net Zero, articulating the risks of exclusion, and who is likely to be affected by them. We conclude by outlining a framework for an inclusive transition, and commenting on the policy and research implications of our thinking.

This article seeks to understand the challenges of combining the distinct aims of personalisation and integration in adult social care. Addressing the local context of service delivery in England through interviews with key stakeholders, we identify how personalisation and integration activities require different, and potentially conflicting, approaches. We observe direct tensions when structural integration with health systems distracts focus from achieving personalised delivery of care or where a focus on clinical outcomes takes precedence over broader wellbeing aspirations. Integration can entail the prioritisation of health over social care and a population rather than personal orientation. We suggest that personalisation and integration are in ‘policy conflict’ (Weible and Heikkila, 2017) and that policy-makers need to acknowledge and address this rather than promise the ‘best of both worlds’.

Social policy represents a critical dimension of the governmental response to COVID-19. This article analyses the Australian response, which was radical in that it signalled an unprecedented policy turnaround towards welfare generosity and the almost total relaxation of conditionality. It was also surprising because it was introduced by a conservative, anti-welfarist government. The principal argument is that, though the generosity was temporary, it should be understood simultaneously by reference to institutional change and institutional tradition. The ‘change’ element was shaped by the urgency and scale of the crisis, which indicated an institutional ‘critical juncture’. This provided a ‘window of opportunity’ for reform, which would otherwise be closed. ‘Tradition’ was reflected in the nation’s federalist conventions, which partially steered the response. The central implication for other countries is that, amid the uncertainty of a crisis, governments need to consider change within the bounds of their traditional institutions when introducing welfare reform.