In East Asia, higher education support policies (HESPs), as the core of the social policies targeting young people, have undergone a significant transformation since the 2000s. The aim of this article is to articulate the reformation process of HESPs by focusing on the National Student Loan system and to investigate whether support for youth is still considered a family responsibility in the post-2000s environment. The findings offer a crucial clue in understanding the transformation of the familialistic East Asian welfare regime. The analysis reveals that Japan continues to respond to the expansion of youth support through family policy, but Korea is attempting to provide support for youth directly to individuals as an independent welfare target. This implies that HESPs are gradually losing their family-oriented characteristics, although these characteristics remain present in Japan, and that the familialistic East Asian welfare regime itself may transform in the future.

This article explores the response of the child welfare system in Germany to the recent refugee crisis. Drawing on administrative data and qualitative interviews with administrators, front-line workers and refugee youth in Nuremberg, the article provides a contextualized account of how the crisis led to the collapse of established bureaucratic procedures, new forms of interagency collaboration and a flexible distribution of responsibilities and tasks. Combining a street-level bureaucracy (SLB) perspective with insights from the literature on crisis and policy change, the analysis shows how the responses of front-line workers effectively altered the content of services, introduced new actors and expanded the professional capacity of the local child welfare system. On a broader level, the findings indicate that front-line practice is not merely guided by policy mandates, but also responds to situational and institutional circumstances. For the child welfare system in Nuremberg, the findings raise important questions about the extent to which aspects of the crisis response will remain a part of the service delivery process moving forward, and whether the recent experience will better prepare them for future crises.

Despite ‘troubled lives’ increasingly coming under the gaze of (powerful) others, our understanding of the issues at hand seems somewhat detached from the experiences of those subject to policy intervention. Due to the deficit model that presents ‘problem families’ as pathological, the voices of those that experience multiple disadvantages and severe material hardship are rarely heard, or, at worst, silenced. Within the context of hardening public attitudes that increasingly vilify the poor, understanding the connection between the personal and public is both timely and valuable. Drawing upon qualitative research, this paper seeks to listen to the voices of young people who currently reside within a ‘troubled family’. Through an exploration of how young people perceive their biographies, their status as ‘troubled’ or troublesome’, their relationships with significant others and their thoughts and feelings towards the future, we are able to recapture and reclaim contemporary depictions of ‘troubled lives’. Uncovering such lived experiences can also act as a springboard through which to explore how young lives (are likely to) unfold when interpreted against the background of restricted opportunities and social censure.

Although there has been a divergence in the development of youth policy across the UK, no country comparisons have been undertaken and a gap exists in the literature. This article focuses on the emergence of youth policy in England and Wales under New Labour (1997–2010), providing a cross-national comparison of policy developments in both countries. It critically explores the impact of the context for policy development and the policy content of both countries' key youth policies. The research found significant differences between the two, despite their common goals, with implications for future policy makers. This article identifies these differences, and the key similarities, providing a theoretical understanding of them and indicating lessons to inform future youth policy.