Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:24:49.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Employer Participation in Active Labour Market Policy: from Reactive Gatekeepers to Proactive Strategic Partners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2018

MICHAEL ORTON ,
ANNE GREEN ,
GABY ATFIELD  and
SALLY-ANNE BARNES
MICHAEL ORTON
Affiliation:
Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL email: [email protected]
ANNE GREEN
Affiliation:
City-REDI, Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT email: [email protected]
GABY ATFIELD
Affiliation:
Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL email: [email protected]
SALLY-ANNE BARNES
Affiliation:
Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Active labour market policy (ALMP) is a well-established strategy but one aspect is greatly neglected – employer participation – about which there is a lack of systematic evidence. The question of why and how employers participate in ALMP, and whether there may be some shift from employers solely being passive recipients of job-ready candidates to having a more proactive and strategic role, is addressed by drawing on new research into Talent Match, a contemporary UK employability programme which places particular emphasis on employer involvement. The research findings point to a conceptual distinction between employers’ roles as being reactive gatekeepers to jobs and/or being proactive strategic partners, with both evident. It is argued that the Talent Match programme demonstrates potential to benefit employers, jobseekers and programme providers, with devolution of policy to the local level a possible way forward. The conclusion, however, is that the barrier to wider replication is not necessarily a problem of practice but of centralised control of policy and, in particular, commitment to a supply-side approach. Empirical, conceptual and policy contributions are made to this under-researched topic.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 511 - 528
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Adam, D., Atfield, G. and Green, A. E. (2017), ‘What works? Policies for employability in cities’, Urban Studies, 54, 5, 1162–1177.Google Scholar
Bredgaard, T. (2018), ‘Employers and Active Labour Market Policies: Typologies and Evidence’, Social Policy and Society, 17, 3, 365–377.Google Scholar
Carter, E. and Whitworth, A. (2017), ‘Work Activation Regimes and Well-being of Unemployed People: Rhetoric, Risk and Reality of Quasi-Marketization in the UK Work Programme’, Social Policy & Administration, 51, 796–816.Google Scholar
Devins, D. and Hogarth, T. (2005), ‘Employing the Unemployed: Some Case Study Evidence on the Role and Practice of Employers’, Urban Studies, 42, 2, 245–256.Google Scholar
Finn, D. (2015), Welfare to work devolution in England, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Fossati, F. (2018), ‘Who Wants Demanding Active Labour Market Policies? Public Attitudes towards Policies that put Pressure on the Unemployed’, Journal of Social Policy, 47, 1, 77–97.Google Scholar
Froyland, K., Andreassen, T. and Innvaer, S. (forthcoming), ‘Contrasting supply-side, demand-side and combined approaches to labour market integration’, Journal of Social Policy.Google Scholar
Gore, T. (2005), ‘Extending employability or solving employers’ recruitment problems? Demand-led approaches as an instrument of labour market policy’, Urban Studies, 42, 341–353.Google Scholar
Green, A.E., Atfield, G. and Barnes, S-A. (2015), Employer involvement and engagement (Talent Match Case Study Theme Report), Sheffield: Centre for Regional and Economic Development, Sheffield Hallam University and IER University of Warwick.Google Scholar
Greer, I. (2016), ‘Welfare reform, precarity and the re-commodification of labour’, Work, Employment and Society, 30, 1, 162–173.Google Scholar
Grover, C. (2009), ‘Privatizing employment services in Britain’, Critical Social Policy, 29, 3, 487–509.Google Scholar
Ingold, J. and Stuart, M. (2015), ‘The demand-side of active labour market policies: a regional study of employer engagement in the Work Programme’, Journal of Social Policy, 44, 443–462.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. (2018), ‘Welfare Grunters and Workfare Monsters? An Empirical Review of the Operation of Two UK ‘Work Programme’ Centres’, Journal of Social Policy, 47, 3, 583–601.Google Scholar
May, S., Cheney, G. and Roper, J. (2005), The Debate Over Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCollum, D. (2012), ‘The sustainable employment policy agenda: What role for employers?’, Local Economy, 27, 5–6, 39–69.Google Scholar
McGurk, P. (2014), Employer engagement: a human resource management perspective, Working Paper WERU7, Work and Employment Research Unit, University of Greenwich Business School.Google Scholar
McQuaid, R. W. and Lindsay, C. (2005), ‘The concept of employability’, Urban Studies, 42, 197–219.Google Scholar
Office, National Audit (2016), ‘English Devolution Deals’, HC 948, London: National Audit Office.Google Scholar
Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2000), ‘Beyond Employability’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24, 6, 729–749.Google Scholar
Pike, A., Lee, N., MacKinnon, D., Kempton, L. and Iddawela, Y. (2017), Job creation for inclusive growth in cities, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Powell, R. and Wells, P. (2015), Talent Match Evaluation and Learning Contract: Briefing Report 2015, Sheffield: Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. (1994), ‘Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research’, in Bryman, A. and Burgess, R.G., (eds.), Analysing Qualitative Data, London: Routledge, 305–329.Google Scholar
Simms, M. (2017), ‘Explaining employer engagement in youth labour market policy in the UK: an interest-based institutionalist account’, Human Resource Management Journal, 27, 4, 548–564.Google Scholar
Sissons, P. and Jones, K. (2012), Lost in transition? The changing labour market and young people not in employment, education or training, Lancaster: The Work Foundation.Google Scholar
Snape, D. (1998), Recruiting long-term unemployed people: employers' views of the National Insurance Contributions Holiday scheme, London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R., Ingold, J., McGurk, P., Boselie, P. and Bredgaard, T. (2017), ‘An introduction to employer engagement in the field of HRM. Blending social policy and HRM research in promoting vulnerable groups' labour market participation’, Human Resource Management Journal, 27, 4, 503–51.Google Scholar
Van der Aa, P. and van Berkel, R. (2014), ‘Innovating job activation by involving employers’, International Social Security Review, 67, 2, 11–27.Google Scholar