Complex images of the differences between public and private activities are endemic in modern capitalist societies. Numerous examples can be found in the field of social policy, but this paper focuses on the historical dialectic between public and private pension arrangements. It compares the interaction over time in a number of countries of the central principles of solidarity and equivalence which have shaped the development of pension provision. Then it illustrates how an understanding of contemporary pressures for the privatization of pension arrangements as a response to the fiscal crisis of welfare states cannot be divorced from their historical and institutional contexts. The paper concludes that pluralistic pension systems offer the best prospect for rational policy analysis and debate provided that a continuing critique of, and dialogue between, the different sectors is encouraged to flourish.

This second article examines the future of the private rented sector in terms of the types of household that will continue to demand accommodation, the types of landlord that will be prepared to continue to let and the match between the requirements of the two groups. It is predicted that, under present policies, the sector will continue to decline but that the problems that will arise will come more from the mismatch between demand and supply than from the absolute size of the sector. The article then examines possible policies that might help to alleviate these problems. It argues that neither a completely free market system nor strengthening existing controls is likely to prove acceptable. Finally, it suggests a number of possible ways forward within a system of partial controls.

Two results are established in this paper. First, economic efficiency is an appropriate aim of policy under most definitions of social justice, including those of libertarians, utilitarians, Rawls and socialists; an increase in efficiency, in other words, can raise social welfare under all these theories of social justice. Second, when production is fixed, no distribution can be socially just unless it is also efficient. Though the weight it is given will vary under different definitions of social justice, economic efficiency is therefore not simply a constituent aim of utilitarianism, but an important goal, whatever one's ideology. Considerations of efficiency are therefore of general relevance to the formulation of social policy.

The article examines the impact of the redundancy payments legislation on women workers. The legislation's adequacy and appropriateness for women is assessed and the assumptions and values enshrined within it are analysed. The article demonstrates that the provisions of the legislation are disadvantageous to women in comparison to men, and that they in effect discriminate against them both directly and indirectly. Moreover, it is suggested that women's particular vulnerability to unemployment and redundancy may be partly explained by the actual mechanics of the redundancy legislation. It is argued that the legislation is based upon a male-dominated conceptualization of work and so fails to consider the position of women in the labour market — a market which by its very nature leads to gender inequalities.

A report from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) showed that £900 million a year of social benefits are unclaimed. Supplementary benefit accounts for most of this. Three out of ten people entitled to claim are not getting the benefit which is their due. The lowest take-up rates are among working families with children. Only half of those entitled to Family Income Supplement are receiving it. The take-up of rent rebates by families with dependent children is 58 per cent and of rate rebates 45 per cent.