We partner with a secure submission system to handle manuscript submissions.
Please note:
You will need an account for the submission system, which is separate to your Cambridge Core account. For login and submission support, please visit the
submission and support pages.
Please review this journal's author instructions, particularly the
preparing your materials
page, before submitting your manuscript.
Click Proceed to submission system to continue to our partner's website.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.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 sending to your Kindle.
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.
‘Mutual obligation’ is a deft political slogan. Morally, it evokes deep-seated intuitions about ‘fair reciprocity’ and the ‘duty of fair play’. It seems an easy slide from those intuitions to ‘mutual obligation’ policies demanding work-for-the-dole. That slide is illegitimate, however. There are many different ways to structure mutual obligation. Workfare policies, such as the Howard government's ‘Mutual Obligation Initiative’ in Australia, pick out only one among many alternative regimes that would answer equally well to our root intuitions about ‘fair reciprocity’. Other ways of structuring mutual obligations within social welfare policy are both more standard and more desirable.
The circumstances which favoured the expansion of state welfare in the post-war ‘golden age’ – secure growth, full employment, moderate welfare needs and national politico-economic autonomy – have been reversed in the ‘silver age’ of labour market restructuring, demographic transition and economic globalisation. Most researchers argue that the European welfare settlement is (so far) surprisingly resilient in the face of current challenges. This article argues that analysis of welfare states has been approached from two basic directions – quantitative analysis and comparative case study – and that each approach has its merits and difficulties. Using the example of pensions policy it show that quantitative methods tend to produce findings which place greater emphasis on continuity and resilience, while case studies focus attention more on political processes. The latter approach is likely to provide greater insight into shifts that may lead to new policy directions in the immediate future. The picture presented by the quantitative method tends to predominate in comparative cross-national studies of the response of welfare states to current pressures, and this may overemphasise stability and resilience against discontinuity and change.
Over the last twenty years, policy-makers have placed increasing emphasis on individual planning, particularly in relation to pensions. Planning for one's own future, and that of one's family, is increasingly upheld as a morally responsible activity. This article explores the assumptions made by policy-makers in this area. It begins with a discussion of how the rhetoric from policy-makers and policy-commentators makes considerable reference to individual planning and responsibility. The policies themselves, however, sometimes act as disincentives to make private provision and do relatively little to provide security for people's future retirement. The article then draws on empirical research including recent qualitative findings to emphasise the limited nature of private pension planning and the constraints people face in relation to this activity.
This article examines claims that social housing allocations policies can, on the one hand, contribute to and on the other, counter, social exclusion. In setting the scene, the paper investigates connections between housing processes and social exclusion and describes the development of social housing allocations systems over the past few decades. Drawing on evidence from two recently completed national studies in England and Scotland it shows that allocation policies contribute to social exclusion in three main ways. First, a large proportion of social landlords restrict eligibility for social housing thereby contributing directly to exclusion. Second, mechanisms within allocation systems continue to segregate the most excluded to the worst residential areas. Third, through the 1990s allocation policies became increasingly coercive, so reducing or eliminating tenant choice over their own housing in distinct contrast to the choice that is available in the private market. The paper then reviews the dilemmas faced by policy-makers: whilst aspects of allocations contribute to social exclusion at the individual level, they may be justified by their role in promoting sustainable residential communities. Although there are hopes that the ‘choice-based’ approaches to lettings which emerged in the late 1990s can both boost community sustainability and counter the disabling impact of coercive approaches, the article suggests it is unlikely that such methods can significantly enhance social inclusion as long as social housing remains a housing sector of last resort, with in-built disadvantages.
Teenage pregnancy rates are extremely high in the UK and extremely low in The Netherlands. Sex education is acknowledged to be a determining factor. While it is by no means the most important factor, it provides a useful comparative lens through which to examine the very different approaches of the British and Dutch to policy-making in this sensitive area.
The issue of sex education is controversial in both the UK and The Netherlands, but while the political debate has been fierce in the UK it has been largely absent in The Netherlands. Our research used documentary sources and interviews to investigate the recent history of policy-making on sex education at the central government level; compared a selection of key texts used in secondary schools; and drew on exploratory fieldwork in three English and three Dutch secondary schools. We find that the approach to the issue is in large part determined by the struggle over ideas in respect of the wider issues of change in the family and sexuality. We suggest that the adversarial nature of the politics of sex education in England and Wales results in a message that lacks coherence, which is in turn reflected in what happens in the classroom. We do not advocate any simple attempt at ‘policy borrowing’, but rather highlight the importance of understanding the differences in the nature and conduct of the debate.
The paper examines social protection for older people in three middle-income countries: Argentina, Thailand and South Africa. It focuses on income support, health services and the provision of care, as well as considering the effects of these policies on social exclusion. The paper locates each country's different social protection programmes within a broader welfare regime model. It finds an interesting variety of approaches to pension and health provision, which range from generous universalism to minimal means-testing. However, it finds much less innovation in areas such as long-term care and intermediary services. The paper challenges generalisations about old age social protection in developing countries, and argues that the different experiences of these three countries could provide useful lessons for social protection in many parts of the world.
David Reisman, Richard Titmuss: Welfare and Society (2nd edn), Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001, vii+307 pp., £50.00.
Peter Alcock, Howard Glennerster, Ann Oakley & Adrian Sinfield (eds.), Welfare and Well-Being: Richard Titmuss's Contribution to Social Policy, Bristol: Policy, 2001, vi+249 pp., £16.99 pbk.