In March 2020, the UK government implemented the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, otherwise known as furlough, to minimise the impact of job losses. The UK furlough protected jobs during the COVID-19 crisis, covering up to 80 per cent of a worker's monthly wage for hours not worked. We evaluate the causal effects of furlough on mental health, life satisfaction and loneliness, considering different labour market transitions in the pandemic. We employ a difference-in-differences estimator with propensity score matching, using data from the main stage and the COVID-19 waves of Understanding Society, the UK Household Longitudinal Study. We show that furlough protected workers' mental health and well-being, compared with non-furloughed workers and unemployment. We also find no detrimental effect on well-being to being furloughed compared with continuous employment. The well-being gains from furlough are particularly evident for those with pre-existing health conditions. Overall, policies that mitigated negative labour market transitions during the pandemic had positive effects on the well-being of the working population.

It is often claimed Scotland is more social democratic in outlook compared to England, if this is the case then we might expect to find differences in public attitudes towards health and social justice, reflecting the growing health policy divergence between the two nations. Comparative attitudes towards healthcare in Scotland and England are worthy of close scrutiny here, given the different reform trajectories, with the running of the Scottish NHS based on professionalism and the English NHS structure built on market-based principles. The Scottish Government also implemented stricter lockdown restrictions compared to the UK Government in England. However, the extent to which the policy responses to the pandemic reflect different attitudes towards collective public health action in the two countries remains under-researched. In this article, public attitudes towards health in Scotland are compared with those in England. The comparative analysis relies primarily on survey data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) module on health and healthcare. This survey was fielded in Scotland and England in the autumn of 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, Scotland is more solidaristic or 'social democratic' than England on key issues relating to public health action and social justice. The findings reveal some commonalities between the nations, confidence in the NHS during the pandemic, and a willingness to improve the health service via higher taxes for example, but also important differences in attitudes and preferences for state action exist that help set the scene for greater policy divergence in the UK.

This article maps the development and uses of the comparative method in academic research since the 1970s. It is based on an original database that we constructed for our review of 12,483 articles extracted from leading journals representing the disciplines of Social Policy, Political Science and Sociology. We proceed to a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the reported comparative research effort. We find that the comparative method became mainstream in the 1990s – following the publication of the Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism and that JESP is the most comparative journal of all. In 2020, 66% of articles published in JESP are comparative. The comparative turn has been stronger in Social Policy than Sociology and Political Science over the last three decades. We witness a rise in the use of formal techniques (case studies and comparative historical analysis, SEM/factorial techniques, cluster analysis, QCA/Fuzzy-set) and mixed-methods in comparison to descriptive analysis, and this is particularly pronounced in Sociology. Regression analysis is dominant, however the most cited comparative articles are based on case studies and descriptive statistics. Overall, we argue that the comparative method is, in essence, ‘a way of thinking’ and not simply the application of a set of disparate techniques.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

This chapter takes stock of the methodologies employed in comparative social policy analysis. It traces the evolution and development of comparative methodology, empirically analysing trends in the Journal of European Social Policy since its first issue, situating comparative analysis within the broader trends and debates. The authors focus on both methods and substance, looking at how major techniques and approaches have been applied in comparative social policy asking three key questions: What is the scholarly use of comparative methods in social policy over the last three decades? How has the comparative methodology helped us to better understand the role, nature, and outcomes of European social policy? Where is comparative methodology heading for the future? A key finding is that while scholarship seems to be geared more and more toward studies based on causation and more sophisticated techniques, the case study approach is foundational and continues to occupy a prominent place.

This chapter considers the prospects for improved social governance to tackle the global challenges of the 21st century, as humanity moves towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production, and hopefully a more socially responsible, equitable, inclusive and just world. It particularly examines the emerging social policies being articulated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in an effort to reform global capitalism. This international organization is made up of rich nation states and is in the process of repositioning itself as the international institution responsible for promoting ‘global social justice’, a highly challenging endeavour. The chapter finds that the OECD is now shaping important aspects of international governance and global social policy, attempting to establish a new global social governance architecture in an effort to tackle growing social inequality. The chapter looks at how the ‘growth paradigm’ is being maintained, while the opportunities for greater redistribution of resources within and among countries gets crowded out by the dominant discourse sustaining global capitalism.

This chapter lays out a critical introduction to the idea of the ‘social’ and examines how notions of the social are now guiding the development of global social policy for the age of sustainability. The chapter presents the different contributions to the evolving debate on the social of social policy and the social dimensions of sustainability that this volume brings together for critical examination and reflection. It approaches the social from multiple angles, rooted in history and culture studies, economics and political science, social politics, sociology and social epidemiology, written by scholars working within and across these different disciplines. The chapter helps us to think more critically about important moral and political aspects of the ‘social’ and especially of the notion of ‘social policy’. It forces us to think very carefully about the meaning of the ‘social’, and the different conceptualizations of the ‘social’ of social policy.

The ongoing social crises and moral conflicts evident in global social policy debates are addressed in this timely volume. Leading interdisciplinary scholars focus on the 'social' of social policy, which is increasingly conceived in a globalised form, as new international agreements and global goals engender social struggles. They tackle pressing 'social questions', many of which have been exacerbated by COVID-19, including growing inequality, changing world population, ageing societies, migration and intersectional disadvantage. This ground-breaking volume critically engages with contested conceptions of the social which are increasingly deployed by international institutions and policy makers. Focusing on social sustainability, social cohesion, social justice, social wellbeing and social progress this text is even more crucial as policy makers look to accelerate socially sustainable solutions to the world's biggest challenges. © Bristol University Press 2021. All rights reserved.

This chapter draws together some of the lessons from the volume as a whole, for thinking through the conceptual ‘lynchpin’ of the ‘social’ and the seismic shifts in social policy over time and space. It returns to the different conceptualizations of the ‘social’ of social policy, and reflects on social progress in the first half of the 21st century. The chapter then presents a number of broadly competing visions for sustaining work and welfare in the 21st century. Those advocating the right to work, ‘full employment’, ‘job guarantees’ and ‘employment insurance’, maintain there are strong ethical arguments that underline the capability to earn one's own living, a basic fundament of human dignity embodied in many constitutions and international conventions. The chapter examines the emerging global social policy frameworks, and proposed pathways and alternatives for accelerating global social progress.

This chapter gives an overview of the research in developing “minimum income standards” and “family budget standards,” “indicative budgets” and “standard budgets.” It analyzes goods and services that are considered necessary to reach a minimum standard of living for an individual or household within a given country context, region, or city. It also brings together up-to-date and accessible information and analysis in an effort to raise the profile and understanding of reference budget research. The chapter places minimum income standards at the heart of global social policy debates that focus on strengthening social protection systems. It also discusses reference budgets and minimum income standards research, covering different methodologies and approaches in relation to the implementation of policy and practice.

This chapter summarizes the enduring relevance and value of reference budget research. It looks into the approach for establishing adequacy benchmarks and minimum income standards that can help guide the development of national, regional and global social policy. It also emphasizes how the overall minimum budget should attempt to support a specified standard of living. The chapter addresses questions on which commodities or items are required to satisfy “needs” and “necessities” and where can these items be purchased and how much are they likely to cost. It reviews methodological approaches that are often combined in various ways in order to define or benchmark income adequacy.

All of the advanced societies must provide their citizens with protection against risk in order to secure continued economic and political stability. In Britain, we have seen a major shift in attitudes towards government and its role in providing social security. Unemployed people are now seen as less ‘deserving’ of welfare, as solidarity with unemployed workers has declined in the context of relatively low levels of unemployment and a public that has become more ‘workfarist’ and less ‘welfarist’ as labour market related risks are increasingly privatized. Here we examine the transfer of political ideas influencing public opinion and policy agendas, and ‘thermostatic’ (Wlezien 1995) theories of state transformation and cross-national attitudes. For this we draw on the British Social Attitudes Survey (BSA) data over a 32 year period, and successive waves of International Social Survey Programme’s (ISSP) Role of Government (RoG) module for the comparative study of Western welfare state attitudes covering a 31 year period.

Major changes in the British welfare state were initiated during the 1980s in response to the 1970s’ stagflation, rapid globalisation and the government’s inability to ensure full employment: the relatively unrestricted payment of unemployment benefits was replaced by a jobseekers’ allowance with applicants obliged to seek work actively and, if required, undergo training. Public support for this shift lagged behind the policy introductions, but from 1997 on there was a major change in attitudes towards welfare beneficiaries. Analysis of social attitude survey data for 1983–2011 shows this change occurred during the decade of relative prosperity under the New Labour governments. There was a growing concentration of anti-welfare attitudes across all social groups, regions and supporters of the main political parties.

Major changes in the British welfare state were initiated during the 1980s in response to the 1970s' stagflation, rapid globalisation and the government's inability to ensure full employment: the relatively unrestricted payment of unemployment benefits was replaced by a jobseekers' allowance with applicants obliged to seek work actively and, if required, undergo training. Public support for this shift lagged behind the policy introductions, but from 1997 on there was a major change in attitudes towards welfare beneficiaries. Analysis of social attitude survey data for 1983–2011 shows this change occurred during the decade of relative prosperity under the New Labour governments. There was a growing concentration of anti-welfare attitudes across all social groups, regions and supporters of the main political parties.