The nature, causes and consequences of poverty have been debated for many years and remain controversial. However, some degree of consensus is a pre-requisite for feasible, sustainable and effective policy responses to poverty. Research methods which can improve understanding of public attitudes towards poverty and identify potential areas of consensus are particularly valuable. Q methodology is a research tool which has the potential to identify points of consensus and contention in relation to poverty. This article introduces the main features of Q and illustrates its potential value by outlining how it was applied to inform the policy recommendations of a Poverty Commission in a city in Britain. The project identified a number of significant points of consensus and controversy in participants' perceptions of the consequences of poverty and preferences regarding responses to it. These findings are related to ideas about how the poverty discourse can be framed to cultivate a more supportive narrative of how poverty is understood and addressed.

The introductory chapter provides an overview of the distinctive focus, principal themes and content of the book as a whole. It explains that the book explores and examines the relationship between Social Innovation (SI) and Social Policy analysis as an academic discipline and field of study. The overall aim of the book is to stimulate dialogue between these fields and their respective and shared interests, and encourage mutual learning. The chapter outlines some of these shared interests and overlaps between SI and Social Policy, and some of the questions considered in the contributions to the book. The editors explain their reasoning for leaving the definition of 'SI' as open as possible - this reflects the condition of the field and the diverse range of contributions. The value of a critical perspective towards both Social Policy and SI is discussed. This is an approach that questions prevailing assumptions, explores discourses and how issues are represented, and which engages reflexively with disciplines and fields of inquiry. The Introduction provides a brief outline of each chapter in the book. It concludes by reiterating the recommendation that more effective policies and a better future are more likely if Social Policy analysis and SI learn from one another.

The article critically examines the Strategic State approach to social policy as represented by the ‘Scottish Approach’ to policy-making and delivery. The article outlines the defining features of a strategic approach to social policy and critically appraises the Scottish Government’s claim to reflect these principles in flagship welfare reforms. The article considers how far a strategic policy approach has been applied in Scotland and draws upon research exploring the response of local leaders to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to examine what this experience reveals about how ‘strategic’ these actions were. The article concludes that, in contrast to previous slow progress in implementing a strategic approach, the exigencies of COVID compelled innovations in policy making and accelerated practices consistent with a strategic approach. The article concludes with some reflections on what this evidence implies for strategic social policy making and governance.

The concluding chapter reflects on some of the key findings and prominent themes evident from the contributions, and considers some of the implications for theory and policy that could be learned from these. It argues that the positive effects of SI have not yet effected the transformation in social and economic conditions that is required to deal with current changes and future crises. In order to make the impact on the scale required, innovations must be allied to social and political movements. SI should become the applied dimension of political activism, and Social Policy analysis a practical guide to its realisation.

Despite a lack of evidence of their effectiveness there is increasing enthusiasm for Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) from diverse political perspectives across the world. This paper argues that while SIBs may potentially be applicable to some technical policy interventions which address relatively simple conditions, they are inappropriate for the complex conditions characterising wicked social problems. Enthusiasm for and over-extension of SIBs reflects a simplistic view of "evidence-based" policy. More fundamentally, SIBs commodify citizens and redefine service users as problems and potential revenue sources rather than conscious agents. SIBs therefore exemplify a prevalent ideology of marketisation and financialisation in social policy.

The introductory chapter outlines some of the major social changes (e.g. in demography, employment and labour markets) which pose significant challenges to established social welfare systems. It discusses how and why social innovation has emerged and been promoted as a response to these challenges. The chapter clarifies the meaning of social innovation by considering how it has been defined, and explains how it relates to innovation in technology and business, and how it differs from social enterprise. Examples of social innovations are provided which illustrate the wide range of activities and diverse forms they take. A typology is provided to classify these variants. The nature of innovation within public organisations is discussed (i.e. intrepreneurialism). The chapter concludes by setting out some of the questions which should be asked of social innovation in relation to social and public policy reform.

This article discusses some of the challenges encountered in embedding effective and sustainable social enterprise and social innovation within established political institutional systems to deliver local welfare services. It draws upon evidence analyzing social innovation and social enterprise in Scotland to contribute to the debate over whether social innovations and social enterprises are able to meet expectations in addressing the significant challenges faced by welfare systems. The article clarifies the meaning of both these contested concepts and explains how social innovation and social enterprise relate to similar ideas in social and public policy. The evidence suggests that actually operating social enterprises and social innovations do not embrace the image of them promoted by enthusiasts as either "entrepreneurial" or "innovative". Furthermore, they bring distinctive challenges in delivering local welfare services, including potential tensions or rivalry with existing public agencies. The article suggests that social enterprises and social innovations are not themselves instigators nor catalysts for systemic change, but that their impact is constrained by structural conditions and institutional factors beyond their control.

This chapter considers the response of social innovations to the growing concern with food poverty. Food provision has not traditionally been a core public welfare function in the most developed welfare regimes, and social innovations often provide more developed and effective responses than government in this area. Voluntary and civil society organisations have pioneered a variety of innovations to feed vulnerable groups while also reducing surplus food waste. These initiatives involve partnerships with private sector food companies which donate surplus supplies which social innovations distribute. The chapter provides examples of how inventive social innovations have had to be to meet the considerable logistical challenges they face in acquiring, storing and distributing surplus food. The chapter concludes by highlighting examples of the impact which social have had in helping to shape public policy innovations in the area of food poverty.

This chapter introduces and discusses examples of social innovation in response to the growing and pressing need to provide care for different groups. Social innovations in this area are often user-led and highly participatory. Many of the most imaginative such initiatives emerge from bottom-up responses developed by citizens’ groups. In other cases, social innovations are initiated by former public officials, frustrated at the lack of an effective response to care needs. The chapter discusses examples of such innovations. These include parental self-provision of childcare in France; involving members of migrant communities to assist with integrating new migrants in Germany; and supporting independent living for older people while providing accommodation for young people in Italy. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the lessons and potential transferability of such innovations to other contexts.

The social care sector has been identified as a potential source of job creation for young people by policymakers, however the quality of such employment opportunities requires closer scrutiny. This study reveals how job creation strategies focused upon sectors such as social care which have high levels of employment insecurity can contribute towards reinforcing patterns of precarious work across Europe. Drawing upon research involving young people and representatives from the sector, this study argues that while attracting new employees is a worthy objective, the capacity of the social care sector to offer secure employment for young people is questionable.