Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T13:21:52.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Demand-Side of Active Labour Market Policies: A Regional Study of Employer Engagement in the Work Programme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2014

JO INGOLD  and
MARK STUART
JO INGOLD
Affiliation:
Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, UK email: j.ingold@leeds.ac.uk
MARK STUART
Affiliation:
Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, UK email: M.A.Stuart@lubs.leeds.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2011, the UK Coalition government introduced its flagship welfare-to-work programme, ‘The Work Programme’ (WP). Based on a ‘payment by results’ model, it aims to incentivise contracted providers to move participants into sustained employment. Employer involvement is central to the programme's success and this paper explores the ‘two faces’ of this neglected dimension of active labour market policy (ALMP) analysis: employer involvement with the programme and the engagement between providers and employers. This paper draws empirically from a regional survey of primarily private and third sector SMEs, and from interviews with providers and stakeholders about provider engagement with SMEs and large employers. Findings indicate that SMEs had recruited few staff through the WP and had little awareness of it, and that providers engaged in intense competition to access both SMEs and large employers. Employers are critical to the success of ALMPs, but an underpinning supply-side ideology and a regulatory context in which business interest associations are weak policy actors means that their involvement is based on implicit and flawed assumptions about employers’ interests and their propensity to engage.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 443 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, J. and Williams, M. (2003), Employer Perspectives on the Recruitment, Retention and Advancement of Low-Pay, Low-Status Employees, Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.Google Scholar
Beatty, C. and Fothergill, S. (2011a), ‘Prospects for worklessness in Britain's weaker local economies’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3: 1–17.Google Scholar
Beatty, C. and Fothergill, S. (2011b), Incapacity Benefit Reform: The Local, Regional and National Impact, Sheffield: CRESR.Google Scholar
Bellis, A., Sigala, M. and Dewson, S. (2011), Employer Engagement and Jobcentre Plus, Research Report No. 742, Sheffield: DWP.Google Scholar
Berger, S. and Compston, H. (2002), Policy Concertation and Social Partnership in Western Europe: Lessons for the 21st Century, New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
Blois, K. (2002), ‘Business to business exchanges: a rich descriptive apparatus derived from Macneil's and Mengers’ analyses’, Journal of Management Studies, 39: 4, 523–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonoli, G. and Hinrichs, K. (2010), Statistical Discrimination and Employers’ Recruitment Practices for Low-Skilled Workers, REC-WP 10/2010, Edinburgh, RECWOWE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2012), Labour Market Outlook, Autumn 2012, London: CIPDGoogle Scholar
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) (2012), Work in Progress: Fulfilling the Potential of the Work Programme, London: CBI.Google Scholar
Curran, J. and Blackburn, R. (1994), Small Firms and Local Economic Networks, London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
Danson, M. and Gilmore, K. (2009), ‘Evidence on employers’ attitudes and EQUAL opportunities for the disadvantaged in a flexible open economy’, Environment and Planning Government and Policy, 27: 991–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2011), The Work Programme, London: DWP.Google Scholar
Eichhorst, W. and Konle-Seidl, R. (2008), Contingent Convergence: A Comparative Analysis of Activation Policies, Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, K. (2004), Corporate Power and Social Policy in a Global Economic Context: British Welfare under the Influence, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, K. (2006), ‘Capital to the rescue? New Labour's business solutions to old welfare problems’, Critical Social Policy, 26: 4, 817–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnsworth, K. and Holden, C. (2006), ‘The business–social policy nexus: corporate power and corporate inputs into social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 35: 3, 473–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finn, D. (2011), Job Services Australia: Design and Implementation Lessons for the British Context, London: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
Fletcher, D. R. (2004), ‘Demand-led programmes: challenging labour-market inequalities or reinforcing them?’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 22: 115–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forde, C. (2001), ‘Temporary arrangements: the activities of employment agencies in the UK’, Work, Employment and Society, 15: 3, 631–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GHK Consulting (2005), Ambition: Identifying Best Practice for Demand-Led Approaches, Research Report No. 264, Leeds: CDS.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1985), ‘Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology, 91: 3, 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gore, T. (2005), ‘Extending employability or solving employers’ recruitment problems? Demand-led approaches as an instrument of labour market policy’, Urban Studies, 42: 2, 341–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, A. and Hasluck, C. (2009), ‘Action to reduce worklessness: what works?’, Local Economy, 24: 1, 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grover, C. (2009), ‘Privatizing employment services in Britain’, Critical Social Policy, 29: 3, 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, S. (2010), Understanding Employer Satisfaction with DWP, Working Paper No. 76, Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
Hall, S., Pettigrew, N. and Mousley, W. (2008), Building a Coherent Strategy for Engagement: Deliberative Research with Employers, Research Report No. 477, Sheffield: DWP.Google Scholar
Hasluck, C. (2011), Employers and the Recruitment of Unemployed People: An Evidence Review, Wath-upon-Dearne, South Yorkshire: UK Commission for Employment and Skills.Google Scholar
Holzer, H., Raphael, S. and Stoll, M. A. (2006), ‘Employers in the boom: how did the hiring of less-skilled workers change during the 1990s?’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88: 2, 283–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (HOC) (2013), Work Programme Outcomes Statistics, 33rd Report of Session 2012–13, HC936, Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
Inclusion (2014), DWP Work Programme: How Is It Performing? London: Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, 19 June 2014, http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c32612be25d976fb2af6c77ed&id=7d22983653.Google Scholar
Ingold, J. and Etherington, D. (2013), ‘Work, welfare and gender inequalities: an analysis of activation strategies for partnered women in the UK, Australia and Denmark’, Work, Employment and Society, 27: 4, 621–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Leadership and Management (ILM) (2009), Bouncing Back: Attitudes to Unemployment, London: ILM.Google Scholar
Larsen, C. A. (2003), ‘Policy paradigms and cross-national policy (mis)learning from the Danish employment miracle’, Journal of European Public Policy, 9: 5, 715–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, C. A. and Vesan, P. (2012), ‘Why public employment services always fail: double-sided asymmetric information and the placement of low-skill work in six European countries’, Public Administration, 90: 2, 466–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, F. (2013), ‘Active labour-market reform in Denmark: the role of governance in policy change’, in Brodkin, E. Z. and Marston, G., Work and the Welfare State: Street-Level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Copenhagen: Djøf Publishing.Google Scholar
Leeds, York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce (LYNYCC) (2012), Quarterly Economic Survey, Q2 2012, Leeds: LYNYCC.Google Scholar
Martin, C. J. (2004), ‘Corporatism from the firm perspective: employers and social policy in Denmark and Britain’, British Journal of Political Studies, 45: 127–48.Google Scholar
Martin, C. J. and Swank, D. (2001), ‘Employers and the welfare state: the political economic organization of firms and social policy in contemporary capitalist democracies’, Comparative Political Studies, 34: 8, 889–923.Google Scholar
Martin, C. J. and Swank, D. (2012), The Political Construction of Business Interests: Coordination, Growth and Equality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McQuaid, R. and Lindsay, C. (2005), ‘The concept of employability’, Urban Studies, 42: 2, 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCollum, D. (2012), ‘The sustainable employment policy agenda: what role for employers?’, Local Economy, 27: 5–6, 529–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Audit Office (2012), The Introduction of the Work Programme: Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Norwich: TSO.Google Scholar
National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) (2012), The Work Programme: What is the Role of Skills? Leicester: NIACE.Google Scholar
Newton, B., Meager, N., Bertram, C.et al. (2012), Work Programme Evaluation: Findings from the First Phase of Qualitative Research on Programme Delivery, Research Report No. 821, London: DWP.Google Scholar
Nunn, A., Bickerstaffe, T., Hogarth, T.et al. (2010), Postcode Selection? Employers’ Use of Area- and Address-Based Information Shortcuts in Recruitment Decisions, Research Report No. 664, Sheffield: DWP.Google Scholar
Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2012), Regional Profiles: Key Statistics – Yorkshire and the Humber, August 2012, Newport: ONS.Google Scholar
Peck, J. (2001), Workfare States, New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2000), ‘“Work First”: workfare and the regulation of contingent labour markets’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24: 119–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinto Romani, A. and Albrekt Larsen, C. (2010), Activation as a Tool to Bypass the Ordinary Recruitment Process: Active Labour Market Policy, Network and Discrimination, CCWS Working Paper, Aalborg: Centre for Comparative Welfare Studies.Google Scholar
Serrano Pascual, A. and Magnusson, L. (2007), Reshaping Welfare States and Activation Regimes in Europe, Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Shury, J., Vivian, D., Gore, K. and Huckle, C. (2012), UK Commission's Employer Perspectives Survey 2012, Evidence Report 64, Wath-upon-Dearne, South Yorkshire: UK Commission for Employment and Skills.Google Scholar
Snape, D. (1998), Recruiting Long-Term Unemployed People, Department of Social Security Research Report 76, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Swank, D. and Martin, C. J. (2004), ‘Does the organisation of capital matter? Employers and active labour market policy at the national and firm levels’, American Political Science Review, 98: 4, 593–611.Google Scholar
Urwin, P. and Buscha, F. (2012), Back to Work: The Role of Small Businesses in Employment and Enterprise, London: Federation of Small Businesses.Google Scholar
Vegeris, K., Vowden, K., Bertram, C.et al. (2010), Support for Newly Unemployed and Six Month Offer Evaluations: A Report on Qualitative Research Findings, Research Report No. 691, Sheffield: DWP.Google Scholar