To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The limited success of employment-based social protection measures under the diverging patterns of post-COVID-19 recovery rekindled interest in a social policy framework known as the Basic Income (BI) support. We test the potential of the BI program using five alternative scenarios ranging from households with income less than half of median income to all adults with estimates of their respective fiscal costs. We then employ an applied general equilibrium model to analyze the economy-wide effects and welfare implications for Turkey in the long run through 2030. We evaluate the macroeconomic and welfare effects of both a business-as-usual fiscal program and an alternative (green BI scenario) comprising of (i) carbon tax levied on the fossil fuel producing industry; (ii) corporate income taxation policy reform that aims at expanding the revenue base and consolidation of the fiscal space of the government; and (iii) restructuring of public consumption expenditures by introducing rationality and efficiency in the structure of fiscal expenditures. Our model solutions reveal that a green BI scenario not only achieves a higher GDP and welfare in the medium to long run but also helps Turkey to reduce its carbon emissions in line with the global policy challenges of a green recovery.
More than one in ten Australians live in poverty, with many relying on government provided support and emergency payments. These payments are insufficient to cover basic costs of living, and as a result, many people are forced to engage with emergency and community food assistance. The aim of this article is to explore the experiences of those who, despite being in receipt of an Australian welfare payment and engaged with the welfare system, rely on charitable food assistance for some or all of their weekly food supply. Interviews were conducted with seventy-eight people and were thematically analysed. The main findings of this study are the significant challenges faced by people who are on very low incomes when navigating the government-provided welfare and non-government charity systems and the insufficiency of the welfare system in providing income to meet basic costs of living.
This chapter explore Churchill’s contribution to the development of the British welfare state from the moment he entered the Cabinet in 1908 to his retirement as prime minister in 1955. It begins by examining the attitudes that shaped Churchill’s approach to social policy – a strong sense of the electoral salience of welfare, a desire to promote personal responsibility and self-help and a paternalistic concern for the ‘left-out millions’ – and then traces how these views shaped his policy and rhetoric from the Edwardian period onwards. It argues that Churchill played an important role in establishing social insurance and the ‘national minimum’ as defining concepts for the British welfare state, though the meaning of these concepts became more conservative over time – a shift which echoed Churchill’s own journey from ‘new Liberal’ firebrand to stalwart Conservative. Though Churchill’s interest in social questions was sporadic by the time he became prime minister, his focus on consumption and employment chimed with the instincts of many other Britons, and helped to shape the distinctive policy settlement which emerged during the 1940s and 1950s.
Viewed by some as the saviour of his nation, and by others as a racist imperialist, who was Winston Churchill really, and how has he become such a controversial figure? Combining the best of established scholarship with important new perspectives, this Companion places Churchill's life and legacy in a broader context. It highlights different aspects of his life and personality, examining his core beliefs, working practices, key relationships and the political issues and campaigns that he helped shape, and which in turn shaped him. Controversial subjects, such as area bombing, Ireland, India and Empire are addressed in full, to try and explain how Churchill has become such a deeply divisive figure. Through careful analysis, this book presents a full and rounded picture of Winston Churchill, providing much needed nuance and context to the debates about his life and legacy.
Academic discussion of social challenges and the government interventions which might address them are overlooking social innovation as an option. Contemporary trends at the community-public management interface, however, show an upsurge of interest in social innovation as a way of simultaneously creating social benefit and economic opportunity. While this indicates that the idea has genuine substance our observation of international and Australian developments convinces us that there is now sufficient experience upon which to base an understanding of what social innovation is and why it has policy significance. In this article we identify some components of social innovation practice and indicate how these might be theorised into generally applicable models.
Social policy developed as a research field and academic discipline to ensure protection from social risks in the era of emerging capitalism and industrialization. While welfare states have successfully increased their citizens’ wellbeing, they have also contributed to the ecological crisis, while the shared scientific understanding of exceeded planetary boundaries and worsening climate change scenarios has not (yet) reshaped mainstream social policy research. In this article, we suggest that the established traditions in social policy research can nevertheless provide a solid ground for responding to the climate emergency and facilitating the sustainable transformation of society and the economy. With a focus on four of the research fields that are central in social policy scholarship – risks, citizenship, welfare regimes, and wellbeing – we develop an ecosocial research agenda. By discussing the classic and climate-adjusted understandings of these fields, we open future pathways for social policy research and invite scholars to engage with our proposed research agenda.
Despite growing interest in proposals for a universal basic income, little advance has been made in implementation. Here we explore policy options for an Australian Basic Income. Our analysis responds to concerns that Basic Income is both too expensive and too radical a departure from existing welfare state structures to be a feasible policy option. Drawing on policy and Basic Income scholarship we identify changes to Australia’s current means-tested benefits structures that move substantially towards Basic Income while remaining consistent with historic policy norms, which we call ‘affluence testing’. Using microsimulation we explore fiscal and distributional trade-offs associated with the implementation of an affluence-tested Basic Income. Our results suggest Basic Income has the potential to significantly reduce inequality and poverty while also requiring taxes to rise substantially. Placing these trade-offs in international context we find the policy would reduce inequality to levels similar to Nordic welfare states while increasing overall taxation to approximately the OECD average.
Very few would dispute the proposition that evidence about the effects of different policy options should inform policy decisions. However, there is less agreement on the nature of the evidence needed. In addition, there may be problems in evaluating that evidence. This is particularly the case when experts offer conflicting advice. This article presents the position held by Professor Nevile that in giving policy advice to the government, it is almost always desirable to draw on a range of different policy instruments. While theoretical input is usually important, it is even more important that theory does not lose contact with the real world. Factual descriptions of the real world and the use of a theoretical toolkit containing more than one theory are essential in achieving this goal. These principles are illustrated by a discussion of a particular category of policy advice – the evaluation of government programmes.
Australian social policy has seen apparently contradictory developments over the period of economic restructuring. Social spending has increased based on a highly redistributive model while inequality has grown. This article explores the relationship between Australia’s experience of economic restructuring and the political dynamics of an emerging ‘dual welfare state’. Importantly, the article argues that Australian reformers did not reject the state per se, nor egalitarianism as an objective. Instead, reform sought to combine greater competition with compensation, generating larger inequalities in market incomes alongside growing social spending. The article explores how Labor combined neoclassical ideas about competition with a commitment to a ‘small state’ version of social democracy. This did moderate inequalities through the period of restructuring, but it also altered the dynamics of political contestation. The article provides two typologies to understand this political dynamic, arguing forms of marketisation opened the door to a political contest over the nature, rather than the extent, of public provision, while the model of targeting reinforced paternalist tendencies inherent in neoliberal reform.
Prof. Marglin argues for a new economics and a new conception of welfare as part of the move to a sustainable future. However, the typical criticisms of the treatment of welfare in economics appear wide of the mark, and there are good reasons to regard this treatment as accurate enough for the job at hand. The critics appear to miss how demanding the job of reshaping economics in their (implicit) desired image would be, and how unproductive it might turn out to be to insist on such a reshaping as a precursor to serious action.
This article examines trends in social disadvantage in Australia over the decade to 2018 using two approaches: a monetary approach using poverty and a living standards approach using deprivation. We compare the two approaches, highlight their implications and assess whether the evidence produced by each is consistent with trickle-down effects. The estimates allow for variations in thresholds, the treatment of housing costs and relative and absolute measures. The findings indicate an overall decline in poverty that is dependent on the treatment of housing costs and a more consistent decline in deprivation but with little or no improvement for many experiencing poverty or deprivation. Poverty and deprivation among unemployed households were above those for people in other labour force states throughout the period and while these differentials have narrowed, the findings suggest that trickle-down effects did not reach many of those highly disadvantaged or are subject to long delays.
The article investigates whether and to what extent the welfare policies of Populist Radical Right Parties (PRRPs) vary in diverse government coalitions. Relying on a multidimensional framework differentiating coalitional politics along the welfare size and deservingness dimension, we conduct a comparative case study analysing welfare reforms of the ‘standard’ centre-right/PRRP government coalition ÖVP-FPÖ in Austria and the ‘new’ populist government coalition M5S-Lega in Italy. We find that both PRRPs do not promote pro-welfare policies in general, but rather opt for selective expansion of benefits for ‘makers’, while aiming at retrenching benefits for ‘takers’. This welfare strategy includes pensioners and male breadwinner families but excludes migrants or long-term unemployed. The analysis furthermore shows that the central line of conflict with the centre-right ÖVP is mostly about the size of welfare policies, especially for ‘deserving’ citizens, while with the socially more left-leaning M5S it is rather centred around the deservingness dimension, e.g., benefits for takers. These results offer a more fine-grained understanding of the PRRPs’ welfare agenda and their coalitional welfare politics in office.
This chapter covers the development of social policies and the modern Welfare State. Welfare states represent recognition that the key welfare needs of the country will be met by the state through the provision of income transfers and key public services. Their development has been closely associated with the expansion of citizenship and human rights. In the UK the Poor Law was a long-lasting historical core on which the nation’s welfare state was built, and was associated with the important infrastructure of local authorities, health systems, and education along with the provision of payments in times of need. A well-functioning welfare state is important for the wellbeing of the population and has valuable redistributive roles. They provide social investment in children’s early lives and guard against social risks such as unemployment and poverty. They have the potential to assist economic growth and to provide the infrastructure and support for human capital, such as through the creation of a ‘healthy workforce’. Generally, the more egalitarian states perform better on a range of well-being measures. They remain a central pillar of the maintenance and improvement of the quality of life of people with disabilities associated with mental health conditions.
The term ‘social exclusion’ appears to have originated in France in the 1970s and had a significant influence on European social policy before being taken up by the UK’s New Labour Government in the 1990s. This chapter outlines the concepts of social exclusion and some of the competing discourses associated with the term. Several notable definitions of the term are discussed before we settle on the CASE definition of ‘An individual is socially excluded if he or she does not participate in key activities of the society in which he or she lives’. The concepts of social exclusion may provide added value to discussing the more traditional concepts of poverty and deprivation. It is a relational concept and thus is of importance for developing a social psychiatric perspective. The relationship between Social Exclusion and Social Inclusion is complex and they are not necessarily polar opposites; rather, they may be viewed as a continuum, but a continuum of several dimensions which may differ over time and place. The chapter sets out a framework for examining the social exclusion of people with mental health conditions.
The final section of the book examines how the social exclusion of people with mental health conditions can be tackled. Health services can play a part in improving health, but these services have traditionally been focussed on treatment and have a limited effect on the broader social determinants. The health of a nation is highly dependent on social, economic, and political forces and broader government policies. The occurrence, course, and outcome of physical and mental health conditions are socially determined and are inequitably distributed in the population. Therefore, broader social, economic, and fiscal policies are needed to address these health inequalities and, in turn, the social exclusion of people with mental health conditions. A public mental health approach is also required. Mental health services play a crucial role in enabling social inclusion for the people they work with. There are continuing challenges for services in preventing the marginalisation of those with the most severe and complex needs. There is a growing evidence base for the effectiveness of specific social interventions that operate at the service or individual level on social inclusion outcomes. For successful implementation, authentic, multi-level stakeholder support and adequate investment is required.
Does a universal basic income (UBI) affect voter turnout? This article argues that the introduction of an unconditional cash payment—where citizens receive money independent of employment status, age, or indigence—can have a turnout-enhancing effect. I evaluate the argument using the introduction of the Permanent Fund Dividend in Alaska. Differences-in-differences estimates covering November general elections from 1978 to 2000 provide compelling evidence that the Alaskan UBI has a significant positive effect on turnout. The results further suggest that the turnout increase was not a one-off effect but persists over a period of almost 20 years. Thus, a UBI has the potential to positively affect turnout among an entire electorate, adding to the discussion around potential welfare reforms in western democracies.
Populism is the most visible and controversial political form in which majority nationalism expresses itself in Western societies. A key question is whether populism is commensurable with, or even injects new life into (atrophying) liberal democracies. This chapter answers this question in the negative, because of populism’s inherent illiberalism and anti-pluralism that undermine the “liberal” pillar of liberal democracy, and thus pose a threat to democracy itself. When trying to explain its rise, the unresolved challenge is to calibrate economic and cultural factors. On the one hand, neoliberal globalization’s attack on lower middle-class prosperity and aspirations seems to be a principal cause of the populist upheaval in the West. On the other hand, this populism perceives itself less as a socioeconomic than a cultural cause, mobilizing rooted majority identity against cosmopolitan elites and immigrants particularly. The move onto the cultural terrain, and adoption of the majority–minority binary, conceals the neoliberal demolition of the social rights of all. Preempting populism by cultural majority rights is not only tangential to some of its deeper sources but it also underestimates the capacity of existing legal-political arrangements to deal with cultural majority claims.
Economic and health crises have profound political consequences for public support for social policy, historically setting in motion a massive expansion of governmental programs. Is demand for social protection likely to increase among citizens exposed to risk in an era in which populist messages are prominent? We show that this depends critically on the precise targets that populists evoke as enemies of the people. We distinguish between two types of political rhetoric deployed by populist politicians in their claims to represent the authentic people—one opposing the authority of domestic elites, including technocrats, and one attacking foreigners. We examine the extent to which each rhetorical strategy reduces or enhances popular demand for social policies by randomly exposing Americans to these frames as part of a public opinion survey conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic. Our results show that the two messages have different consequences for support for redistribution among respondents exposed to risk: populist anti-foreign rhetoric that blames foreign countries for the onset of the pandemic increases demand for expansion of social protection compared to populist anti-elite rhetoric.
The common law is based on doctrinal and social propositions. Doctrinal propositions purport to state legal rules that the legal profession regards as legal doctrine. Social propositions are propositions of social morality, social policy, and empirical propositions. The two types of propositions do different work. Doctrinal propositions are legal rules; social propositions are the reasons for legal rules. A common law rule is justified only if it is supported by social propositions. The kind of morality that is relevant to legal reasoning is social or conventional morality, that is, moral norms that are rooted in aspirations for the community as a whole and that have substantial support in the community. When policy is relevant to legal reasoning, the kinds of policies that are relevant are social policies – policies that have substantial support in the community or about which there is reason to conclude that they would be conducive to public welfare.