Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T03:19:06.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter-agency Co-operation in Activation: Comparing Experiences in Three Vanguard ‘Active’ Welfare States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2008

Colin Lindsay  and
Ronald W. McQuaid
Colin Lindsay
Affiliation:
Employment Research Institute, Napier University Business School, Craiglockhart 03/50, Edinburgh, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Ronald W. McQuaid
Affiliation:
Employment Research Institute, Napier University Business School, Craiglockhart 03/50, Edinburgh, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New forms of inter-agency co-operation have gained increasing prominence in the development and delivery of activation strategies. This article compares different models of inter-agency co-operation, drawing on case study research in Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK. The different models have reported variations in performance when delivering on the key benefits often attributed to effective inter-agency co-operation. The article raises concerns that the process of contracting-out in activation has at times conflicted with attempts to improve co-operation between agencies, while the increasing dominance of purchaser–provider relations can undermine progress towards ‘shared ownership’ of activation policies and effective partnership-working.

Type
Themed Section on The Governance of Activation
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 353 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Borghi, V. and Van Berkel, R. (2007), ‘New methods of governance in Italy and the Netherlands: the case of activation policies’, Public Administration, 85, 1, 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruttel, O. (2005), ‘Are employment zones successful? Evidence from the first four years’, Local Economy, 20, 4, 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, B., Powell, M. and Glendinning, C. (2004), ‘Conceptualising successful partnerships’, Health and Social Care in the Community, 12, 4, 309–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) (2007), Speech by Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, at the Institute for Public Policy Research, 12 September, London, DWP.Google Scholar
Freud, D. (2007), Reducing Dependency, Increasing Opportunity: Options for the Future of Welfare to Work, London: DWP.Google Scholar
Treasury, HM (2006), Lisbon Strategy for Jobs and Growth: UK National Reform Programme –Update on Progress, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Knox, C. (2002), Review of Public Administration: Partnerships, Belfast: Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.Google Scholar
Lindsay, C. (2007), ‘The United Kingdom's “Work First” welfare state and activation regimes in Europe’, in Pascual, A. Serrano and Magnusson, L. (eds), Reshaping Welfare States and Activation Regimes in Europe, Brussels: Peter Lang, pp. 35–71.Google Scholar
Lindsay, C., McQuaid, R.W. and Dutton, M. (2007), ‘New approaches to employability in the UK: combining “human capital development” and “Work First” strategies?’, Journal of Social Policy, 36, 4, 539–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lødemel, I. (2001), ‘Discussion: workfare in the welfare state’, in Lødemel, I. and Trickey, H. (eds), An Offer You Can't Refuse: Workfare in International Perspective, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 295–345.Google Scholar
McQuaid, R.W. (2000), ‘The theory of partnerships – why have partnerships?’, in Osborne, S.P. (ed.), Managing Public–Private Partnerships for Public Services: An International Perspective, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McQuaid, R.W., Lindsay, C. and Greig, M. (2005), ‘Job guarantees, employability training and partnerships in the retail sector’, Local Economy, 20, 1, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. and Zadek, S. (2000), Partnership Alchemy: New Social Partnerships in Europe, Copenhagen: Copenhagen Centre.Google Scholar
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1990), Partnerships for Rural Development, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Powell, M. and Exworthy, M. (2002), ‘Partnerships, quasi-networks and social policy’, in Glendinning, C., Powell, M. and Rummery, K. (eds), Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Rummery, K. (2002), ‘Towards a theory of welfare partnerships’, in Glendinning, C., Powell, M. and Rummery, K. (eds), Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Stoker, G. (1998), ‘Public–private partnerships and urban governance’, in Pierre, J. (ed.), Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience, Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar