The Social Policy Digest went online in 2002, and since then has developed into a major web-based resource on UK social policy issues. By the end of 2008 it contained over 22,000 entries, covering policy developments and research findings across the whole range of social policy fields.

Uncovering old or historical family secrets has become an enjoyable pastime yet in contemporary families the keeping of secrets, especially those relating to reproduction and paternity, is seen increasingly as undesirable. This article explores these issues and the growing tendency for family law and policy to favour exposing genetic truths – seeing this form of scientific veracity as crucial to child welfare and equality. The article explores the changing contexts of family secrets (using data drawn from the Mass Observation Archive) and seeks to locate these secrets in their cultural and historical context. An argument against imposing a simple solution (in the form of genetic truth) onto complex relationships is pursued.

Improving children's lives is high on the UK policy agenda. In this study for a recent birth cohort of UK children we examine how three aspects of parental resources – income, mother's mental well-being and family status – in early childhood enhance or compromise their children's cognitive and behavioural development. As well as examining how these three aspects of parental resources separately and jointly affect children's well-being, we also enquire whether persistent poverty or persistent maternal depression are more deleterious for children's current well-being than periodic episodes of poverty and depression. We find strong associations between poverty and young children's intellectual and behavioural development, and persistent poverty was found to be particularly important in relation to children's cognitive development. Maternal depression (net of other factors) was more weakly related to cognitive development but strongly related to whether children were exhibiting behaviour problems, and persistent depression amplified the situation. Family status, net of other factors (most noticeably poverty), was only weakly associated with children's development.

The academic literature on incapacity benefits in Britain is dominated by debates about ‘hidden unemployment’, particularly in relation to working-age men in the industrial and former coalmining areas. Although women account for two-fifths of all claimants, they have been given relatively little attention in the literature on incapacity benefits. This article draws on a representative survey of recent claimants of Incapacity Benefit (IB) in Britain to compare the situation of men and women aged under 60. It shows that there are significant differences in their characteristics and circumstances and in their routes onto this benefit. It is concluded that academic debates in Britain need to take into account the differences between women and men in order to reach a more complete understanding of the role of IB in the post-industrial economy.

Alford's theory of structural interests has been used as a framework within which to analyse health systems across the world. However, authors have often been uncritical in their acceptance of Alford's original analytic categories. In this article we use data from a detailed qualitative study of the introduction of Practice Based Commissioning in the UK NHS to interrogate Alford's work more critically. Disrupting Alford's original categories of ‘professional monopolisers’ as dominant interests, challenged by management ‘corporate rationalisers’, we suggest that the new structures established in the NHS since 2002 systematically privilege an interest that we call ‘corporate monopolisers’, and that this is under challenge from ‘professional rationalisers’.

The English NHS has been repeatedly restructured since 1991. Drawing on multiple case studies in English primary health care from 1998 to 2005 and on (other) published studies, this article uses Therborn's theory of power to make a framework analysis of how these reforms redistributed power between medicine and management in NHS primary care. Legal changes ended the GP monopoly of primary medical care provision and, with greater managerial discretion in NHS spending, allowed more diverse organisational forms of primary care provision to appear, although general practice remained predominant. Changes in managerial and professional ideologies relaxed the restrictions on managerial decisions about general practice. Re-negotiations between the medical profession and the state mostly tended to increase managerial power. Evidence-based medicine has tended to weaken the impersonal sources of medical power. On balance, these events have tended to increase managerial power over medical practice. They also suggest adjustments to Therborn's conceptualisation of power.

Informal payments for health services are widespread in many transition economies in post-communist Europe and the former Soviet Union. Their existence complements and in some cases significantly contributes to the financing of their health systems. It has been suggested that they are the legacy of planned socialist economies and a temporary side effect of the transition from a planned to a market economy. This article discusses the findings of the study investigating the extent and nature of the informal payments and evaluates the policy options on offer. It asserts that despite the level of declared support for moderate cost-sharing by different population groups, it is unlikely that any legalised form of co-payment will affect or replace informal payments, as the government uses them to sustain the illusion of ‘free’ health care. The study argues that the utilitarian gain maximisation principle, calling for the greatest collective welfare in communitarian egalitarianism, and the satisfaction of individual preferences in libertarian economics enable the acceptance of informal payments as a viable policy option.

Recent Mental Health Acts provide evidence of diverging UK and Scottish government policy styles. The UK legislative process lasted almost ten years following attempts by ministers to impose decisions and an unprecedented level of sustained opposition from interest groups. In contrast, the consultation process in Scotland was consensual, producing high levels of stakeholder ‘ownership’. This article considers two narratives on the generalisability of this experience. The first suggests that it confirms a ‘majoritarian’ British policy style, based on the centralisation of power afforded by a first-past-the-post electoral system (Lijphart, 1999). Diverging styles are likely because widespread hopes for consensus politics in the devolved territories have been underpinned by proportional representation. The second suggests that most policy-making is consensual, based on the diffusion of power across policy sectors and the ‘logic of consultation’ between governments and interest groups (Jordan and Richardson, 1982). The legislative process deviated temporarily from the ‘normal’ British policy style which is more apparent when we consider mental health policy as a whole. Overall, the evidence points to more than one picture of British styles; it suggests that broad conclusions on ‘majoritarian’ systems must be qualified by detailed empirical investigation.

This article recounts the methodological story of a qualitative research project that investigated the work of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain and the news media's deconstruction of the Commission's report – the Parekh Report – which was published on 11 October 2000. Our project used a multi-method fieldwork approach, combining textual analysis of news media coverage and the extensive documentary archives of the Commission, along with semi-structured interviews with Commissioners and other figures involved in the publication of the Report. The article attempts to offer a reflexive account of the experiences of interviewing a particular public policy-making elite and examines how a particular ‘public trauma’ – that is, the damaging political fall-out of extremely negative news media coverage of the Parekh Report – inflected our research encounters. We argue that the openness with which many of the participants spoke about this traumatic experience suggests that the production of policy documents can constitute highly emotional labour for participants. We extend this argument by examining how this openness also reveals the instabilities and uncertainties of power within the research interviewee/interviewer relationship. In this way the article seeks to contribute to debates about the problems of defining the category ‘elites’ in both public policy and social research worlds.