Rights problems such as debt, employment, welfare benefits and family problems are widespread. They are problems of everyday life, affecting many people and many aspects of people's lives and are now well documented. In contrast, there has been little research on the role of family and friends when experiencing a problem and seeking advice. Drawing on comprehensive qualitative research, this article explores how people seeking advice for their rights problems rely on family and friends for help in the advice-seeking process. The research shows that help lies on a continuum from encouraging people to seek advice to assistance with the tasks necessary for problem resolution. The implications of this for service design are considered.

Qualitative longitudinal research can make a distinctive contribution to policy discussions and to the assessment of outcomes. This article draws on research with lone-parent families over fifteen years to illustrate how change and continuity can look different over shorter and longer time periods, to discuss presenting longitudinal qualitative evidence through the selection of case studies, and to explore some of the challenges of engaging in policy debates with qualitative data.

Across the industrialised nations, the labour market participation of older workers (i.e. those aged 50 and over) continues to attract considerable attention, as the numbers in employment decline and those who are inactive or retired increase (for a 21-country review see OECD, 2006). Against a background of concern over the economic and social implications of low employment rates among the over-50s, much public policy has come to focus on extending the average working life by encouraging people to work for longer and to delay retirement (see, for example, House of Lords, 2003; and on European policy, von Nordeim, 2004).

The history of welfare states is marked by divisions between capital and labour and these divisions are replicated at the international level. At the heart of these divisions is enduring class interests which accord different priorities to social and economic factors. That these divisions exist is neither surprising, nor necessarily a problem; the problem, this paper argues, is the increasingly high priority given to business interests by ever more powerful international governmental organisations. This paper presents an analysis of power in the global economy before investigating the social policy preferences of key international capital and labour organisations. It argues that international class mobilisation has failed to produce very much of a compromise on the part of capital, and that, if anything, international social policy discourse is today even closer to business than it has ever been.

Many of New Labour's welfare initiatives were underpinned by a stated desire to combat social exclusion among disadvantaged sections of the population. Allied to this, a commitment to end street homelessness/rough sleeping was an enduring feature of their term in office (for example SEU, 1998; DCLG, 2008). Of course, concerns about social exclusion predate New Labour, and a lack of meaningful involvement in many key areas of wider social life (for example, democratic and legal systems, the labour market, the welfare state, familial and (local) community networks) have long been identified as symptomatic of social exclusion (Commins, 1993). Previous research has also noted that homelessness rarely occurs in isolation and that many homeless people often carry with them a variety of other problems and experiences. It is clear that many homeless people experience ‘exclusion across more than one domain or dimension of disadvantage, resulting in severe negative consequences for [their] quality of life, well-being and future life chances’ (Levitas et al., 2007: 9), and, as such, can be viewed as experiencing multiple and/or deep social exclusion. This situation has been recognised by Carter (2007) who, noting a lack of resources, rights and opportunities, adopts the phrase ‘multiple exclusion homelessness’ (MEH) as a shorthand term to characterise the reality of many homeless peoples’ lives.

A. Hall and J. Midgely (2004), Social Policy for Development, Sage, London, 288 pages.

I. Gough and G. Wood (2004), Insecurity and Welfare Regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America, Cambrdige University Press, Cambridge, 363 pages.

E. Rieger and S. Leibfried (2003), Limits to Globalization, Blackwell, Oxford, 402 pages.

The Norwegian Parliament passed new rules for child maintenance determination in 2001. This article discusses the 2001 reform, and the debate preceding it, in the light of literature on changing ‘breadwinner assumptions’ in social policy. It is argued that the reform was a clear example of the politicisation of fatherhood in Norway, in that a key concern was to encourage continued care from non-resident fathers. Much less attention was paid to the situation of custodial parents, and to children's material needs. In assuming that parents living apart will conform to the (yet unusual) dual earner/dual carer model, policy makers may be putting undue stress on vulnerable families.

Both literature and public policy on work inclusion has shifted towards the demand-side, which recognises that employer engagement is crucial to increase labour market participation and sustained employment for vulnerable groups. Research shows, however, that the implemented demand-side policies have been less than effective. This opens a discussion about barriers to implementation in terms of relevant employer characteristics. By use of Norwegian register data, this article estimates the impact of employer size and extent of implemented disability policies on probability of sustaining employment for workers with reduced capacity, finding that employer size negatively impacts probability of sustaining employment. Extent of implemented disability policies positively impacts probability of sustaining employment, irrespective of employer size. I argue that systematically considering these characteristics can help identify how and where to improve the position of workers with reduced capacity and discuss the implications for public policy.

Little research has been conducted exploring the relationship between public-sector accountability and the law. This is a significant oversight given the potential for this relationship to cause unintended consequences around issues of liability, especially in the context of a growing litigation culture. The purpose of the current research is to explore this relationship, using qualitative studies of public-sector professionals in England. The findings of the study suggest that increasing emphasis on accountability has led to a growing magnification of legal risk in the public sector, with consequences for the ways public-sector professionals perceive their relationships with the public.

In this themed section, the editors and authors take us far beyond the usual thinking about welfare reform. How, they ask, do politicians want us to feel about welfare reform? How do we think we should feel and how do we feel about it? How does the disabled woman who has lost her government-provided caregiver and ‘hasn't been out of the house since Christmas’, feel about it? Or the man who petitions to restore his lost government aid – but fails to do so? Or the wealthy Dutch tax payer? These are are the sorts of questions that arise in the study of a changing welfare states.

This themed section focuses on parenting support as a social policy phenomenon within and across the five Nordic Countries of Europe: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. As in other parts of Europe, parenting support has received increased attention in social policy making in the Nordic region. In reviewing developments in the Nordic countries, the themed section seeks to identify and discuss similarities and differences between parenting support policies in the North versus other parts of Europe. It considers whether the aims and the provision of parenting support in the Nordic countries differ significantly from those identified in studies of parenting support policies in other European countries.

This article reviews the recommodification of social policy in the context of financialised austerity capitalism and post-crisis welfare states. It sets out an understanding of recommodification as a multiple set of processes that involve the state in labour market-making, by shaping labour’s ‘saleability’. Under conditions of finance-dominated austerity capitalism, the article argues that recent dynamics of recommodification complicate the long established Piersonian observations. For Pierson, recommodification signifies how elements of the welfare state that shelter individuals from market pressures are dismantled and replaced with measures which buffer their labour market participation. This article examines ways in which recent policy trends in recommodification, whether by incentivising or coercive means, increase exposure to labour market risks and connect with the growing inequalities between capital and labour under post-crisis re/financialised austerity capitalism. This analysis is paired with a synoptic review of recent labour market trends and reforms across the European Union. As recommodification evolves, the insecurity it institutes raises fundamental questions about the underlying nature of social citizenship which are also addressed.

The provision of services in the contractual welfare state is conditional. If one wants to receive a service, one has to comply with the demands of the provider. If one fails to do so, the organisation threatens to terminate its services, and indeed often does so. There are, however, people who breach their contracts time after time, falling back into the same dire situation that prompted them to ask for help in the first place. Social workers must then visit these people to help them re-enter the contract. This article draws on an in-depth analysis of such ‘behind the front door’ policies, focussing on single mothers on welfare. It argues that for many single mothers on welfare, social security fails to provide emotional and relational security, which undermines their ability to fulfil the terms of the contract. So long as the welfare state is based on the idea of (material) social security, ‘behind the front door’ workers remain urgently needed.

This article showcases a research, dissemination and impact study on the striptease industry that explores why key stakeholders (dancers) are excluded, and ways that inclusion in policy development is achievable. This form of erotic work has undergone increased attention from policy and regulatory officials in recent years with the introduction of a new licensing process as venues are categorised as Sexual Entertainment Venues. The article will demonstrate how community and campaign group voices were heard over that of the dancers themselves, who were not consulted in the process of the legislative change. However, the article shows how small but significant interventions into policy development by direct work with stakeholders (here Licensing Committees and officers) can make steps towards an inclusion of dancer welfare and safety issues. Finally, we propose a set of principles that can ensure dancer and sex worker voices are included in policy consultation and decision making to ensure evidence-based policy making.

This introductory article offers an analytical framework to understand the limits of approaches that stress the diffusion and transfers of international norms within the field of disability policy over the last three decades. It also aims to provide alternative ways to frame some of the important changes that have occurred through the concept of layering, in order to better account for the intricate processes of national translation but also for the contradictions, conflicts, and obstacles that the promotion of disability rights have faced in different countries. Finally, this article serves to introduce the contributions that make up the themed section in this issue of Social Policy and Society.

The project that we report here provided free home computers and a one-year broadband subscription to a sample of 108 older people diagnosed with coronary heart disease. The sample was divided at random and the experimental group had ‘facilitated learning’, based on access to a dedicated website, while controls did not. The results suggest that many participants needed to overcome their fear of new technology before they could learn how to use it effectively. Significant differences in computer skills were found between the experimental and control groups after six months of being involved in the project.

This article contributes to the growing literature concerning the necessity and desirability of democratising the UK welfare state. It takes a theoretical approach by exploring some of the key influences on contemporary debates: risk society, governmentality, the new social democracy and associational welfare. The article suggests that none of these supplies the theoretical foundations of a welfare democracy and that another approach must be found. It concludes that only by engaging with the debate concerning deliberative democracy can social policy find a way forward. The key is to emancipate social time through an alternative ethic to that of paid employment.

‘The big society’ was a central theme in the Conservative's 2010 general election campaign. Opinion polls at the time of the election suggested that ‘the big society’ had little resonance with the public. Nevertheless, ‘the big society’ has been the subject of a number of prominent re-launches since the election. It appeared to underpin the Coalition government's policies in a range of areas and the Prime Minister invested considerable personal capital in it. This article examines public attitudes towards ‘the big society’. Drawing on public opinion data, it focuses on public recognition and understanding of ‘the big society’ and more broadly on whether the government's approach to rolling back state provision has prompted an increased public appetite for involvement in the delivery of services.

In most democratic countries people with intellectual impairments are denied the right to vote in national elections. One important reason for this is that they are perceived as incapable of making independent political judgements and may thus fail to vote on the basis of their own preferences. Their exclusion is consequently defended by appeal to the need to protect the ‘integrity’ of democratic elections. In this article, this assertion is critically examined. The conclusion is that this argument does not hold sway once the connections between political equality and democratic elections have been clarified. Whilst political equality requires that elections are fair in the sense that everyone's preferences are given equal weight, fundamentally political equality also requires that everyone's opportunity to vote securely and without undue interference from others is recognised. Hence, as long as such opportunities have not been granted to people with intellectual impairments, they cannot consistently be excluded by appeal to the values of political equality.

This article contributes to the search for suitable approaches to combat social exclusion faced by disabled people in capitalist wage labour markets. Referring to policy and service examples in Hong Kong, it reviews four social exclusion approaches – the Moral Underclass (MUD), Social Integrationist (SID), Redistributive (RED) and Collective Production (COP) approaches. These approaches are explored in relation to three key issues: (1) the diverse preferences of disabled people; (2) the myth of infeasibility regarding unconventional approaches and (3) the defects of the medical model of disability. The article argues that the MUD and SID approaches are more associated with the medical model of disability and emphasise individual changes. The RED and COP approaches contain more features of the social model of disability and are in favour of social and structural changes. The COP approach stresses the diverse preferences of disabled people and supports innovative services to combat social exclusion.