© University of Kent - Contact | Feedback | Legal | FOI | Cookies
About
I am Research Professor of Social Policy at the University of Kent’s School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research.
I chaired the British Academy New Paradigms in Public Policy Programme (2010/2011) and am Chair of the REF Social Work and Social Policy and Administration panel 2011-15, a Fellow of the British Academy, a Founding Academician at the Academy of Social Sciences and, previously, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Sociology and Social Policy Section.
I participated in the Prime Minister’s No 10 ‘progressive consensus’ Round Table and advised the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit between 2009 and 2010.
Career
I joined the University of Kent in 1979 as a Lecturer in Social Policy. I became Professor of Social Policy in 1990. I started my lecturing career at the University of Manchester as a Lecturer in Social Administration.
I’ve written 23 books, 120 articles and 95 chapters, and given more than 100 keynote presentations at international conferences.
I am now experimenting in expressing social policy ideas in novels such as 'The Baby Auction'.
Major grants
Major grants include:
- Our Children’s’ Europe, 2015-18, a NORFACE project led from Kent, 1.5m Euro. The project links together teams in Denmark, Germany, Norway, Slovenia and the UK, carrying out innovative research into people’s attitudes to the welfare state and how it will develop, using Democratic Forums and Focus Groups.
- INSPIRES (Resilience, unemployment and young people), an EU FPV project, led from Erasmus, Rotterdam, Euro 220,000. Inspires conducts co-ordinated research in 12 countries on policy responses to unemployment among vulnerable groups and compares the success of different initiatives.
- Social Contexts and Responses to Risk, an ESRC Priority Network, 2003-2008, £2.8m. The Network links together research projects in 12 universities which examine how people perceive and respond to risks. The research is multi-disciplinary and the team includes sociologists, economists, psychologists and experts in social policy, socio-legal studies and media.
- Welfare Reform and the Management of Societal Change, an EU FPV project, 2001-5, 1.1m euros. This project, directed from Kent, examines how European social policy responds to the challenges of population ageing, labour market change and ideological shifts against the welfare state.
- Economic Beliefs and Behaviour, an ESRC Research Programme, 1994-9, £1.5m. EBB is a multi-disciplinary research programme involving economists, psychologists, sociologists, social policy experts and other social scientists. The research investigated the relationship between people’s understanding of economic and material issues and their behaviour. It was conducted in 17 university departments and research institutes in the U.K. and in collaboration with visiting experts from Europe and America.
Plus 42 smaller grants to a total value of £6.2m, £4.5m from ESRC.
Major recent publications
Major recent publications include:
- The Baby Auction, Canterbury: Conrad Press, 2016
- The Double Crisis of the Welfare State and What We Can Do About It, Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2013.
- New Paradigms in Public Policy, (ed.) Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.
- A Left Trilemma: progressive public policy in an age of austerity, Policy Network, London, 2012.
- Squaring the Spending Circle, British Academy and Oxford University Press, 2011.
- Reframing Social Citizenship, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, tr. Chinese 2011, Chu Liu Book Company.
- Welfare States under Pressure, (revised edition, tr. Chinese) Song-Hui, Taipei, Taiwan, 2006.
- Risk in Social Science, (ed., and Jens Zinn), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006, tr. Chinese, 2011, Chu Liu Book Company.
- Learning about Risk, (ed., and Jens Zinn) Forum Qualitative Research (FQS 1/2006).
- Ideas and Welfare State Reform in Western Europe (ed.) London, Palgrave, 2005.
- New Risks, New Welfare: The Transformation of the European Welfare State, (ed.) Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004, Chinese translation, 2009, Chu Liu Book Company.
Education
I completed my PhD in Social Policy at the University of Kent, my M.Phil and Diploma in Social Administration at the University of York and my BA in Philosophy and English Literature at the University of Bristol.
Contact Information
Address
Room E234, Cornwallis East
SSPSSR
University of Kent
Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF
Links
Publications
Recent Publications
Also view these in the Kent Academic Repository
Book
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2016). The Baby Auction. [Online]. Canterbury, Kent, UK: The Conrad Press. Available at: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Baby-Auction-Peter-Taylor-Gooby-ebook/dp/B01IKW9I3O/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
Summary
Auctioning babies makes sense; the babies go to new parents who've proved by paying more than anyone else that they will give them the best start in life; the parents who've brought them into the world get real compensation for their pain and trouble. At least that's what everyone in Market World thinks.
Ed, a tough, spirited and streetwise young woman, and Matt, innocent and loyal, an outsider, hate this world, where the market decides everything. Anna, a successful business woman and Dain one of the Enforcers who police the city, think it offers a brave new world.
The Baby Auction tells the story of Ed and Matt's love and of their struggle against Market World, of their pain and trials and ultimate escape. It also tells how Anna and Dain come to discover that there is more to life that success in the city, and that they must overcome the contempt of all those around them, mistrust and betrayal before they can prove their love for each other through self-sacrifice.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013). The Double Crisis of the Welfare State and What We Can Do About It. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
The NHS, education, social care, local government, employment services, social housing and benefits for the poor face major challenges from a government determined to entrench a radical and divisive liberalism permanently in British public life. This book analyses the immediate challenges from headlong cuts that bear most heavily on women, families and the poor, and from a root-and-branch restructuring which will fragment and privatise the bulk of public services. It sets this in the context of escalating inequalities and the longer-term pressures from population ageing. It demonstrates that a more humane and generous welfare state that will build inclusiveness is possible by combining policies that limit child poverty, promote more equal outcomes from health care and education, introduce a greater contributory element into social benefits, invest in better child and elder care and address low wages and workplace rights. It shows that such policies are affordable because they follow the long-term trajectory of welfare state spending across the UK and other developed countries. It analyses the political forces that can be marshalled to support these shifts and shows that, with political leadership, the welfare state can attract mass support.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2012). A Left Trilemma: progressive public policy in an age of austerity. [Online]. London: Policy network. Available at: http://www.policy-network.net/publications/4156/A-Left-Trilemma.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
Progressive public policy in the age of austerity
Why is it so hard for the left to produce a coherent and progressive response to the crisis, when market neoliberalism has so obviously failed? This new Policy Network paper argues that the British Labour party and other European left-of-centre parties are caught-up in a public policy trilemma.
The left must respond adequately to the economic crisis to be seen as competent, it must address the established themes in public opinion to be electable, and it must develop generous and inclusive policies, to be progressive.
The paper identifies conflicts in all three areas:
Low public sector productivity growth and demographic shifts tighten already harsh spending constraints.
Entrenched public suspicions of higher taxes for any but the distant rich and a public discourse which makes rigid distinctions between those who are deserving and undeserving of state welfare conflict with egalitarian or redistributive policies.
Both spending constraints and the key themes in public opinion conflict with generous and inclusive policies.
In reviewing a range of policy programmes, A Left Trilemma reflects on the tough choices facing social democrats if they are to shift public discourse in a more supportive direction
Plant, R., Lesser, A. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). Political Philosophy and Social Welfare. London: Routledge.
This re-issued work, first published in 1980, represents a work of normative political philosophy which argues positively for the centrality of the obligation to meet the various demands of social need in our society, and will be of particular interest to students of politics, philosophy, social politics and administration. Bringing the insights of analytical Political Philosophy to bear on the issues of social welfare and welfare provision, the authors discuss such issues as the basis of the sense of stigma involved in the receipt of welfare benefits, the right of welfare and the concepts of 'community'.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2008). Reframing Social Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
Recent reforms in welfare states generate new challenges to social citizenship. Social citizenship depends on the readiness of voters to support reciprocity and social inclusion and their trust in welfare state institutions as services that will meet their needs. Reform programmes in most western countries combine New Public Management, linking market competition and regulation by targets to achieve greater efficiency and responsiveness to service-users, and welfare-to-work and make-work-pay activation policies to manage labour market change. Both developments rest on a rational actor approach to human motivation. The UK has pursued the reform programme with more vigour than any other major European country and provides a useful object less of its strengths and limitations.
The book provides a detailed analytic account of social science approaches to agency. It shows that the rational actor approach has difficulties in explaining how social inclusion and social trust arise. Policies based on it provide weak support for these aspects of citizenship. It is attractive to policy-makers seeking solutions to the problem of improving the efficiency and responsiveness of welfare systems in a more globalised world, in which citizens are more critical and the authority of national governments is in decline.
Recent reform programmes were undertaken to meet real pressures on existing patterns of provision. They have been largely successful in maintaining mass services but risk undermining social inclusion and eroding trust in public welfare institutions. In the longer term, they may destroy the social citizenship essential to sustain welfare states.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). New Risks, New Welfare: The Transformation of the European Welfare State. Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
This book introduces the concept of new social risks in welfare state studies and explains their relevance to the comparative understanding of social policy in Europe. New social risks arise from shifts in the balance of work and family life as a direct result of the declining importance of the male breadwinner family, changes in the labour market, and the impact of globalization on national policy-making. They differ from the old social risks of the standard industrial life-course, which were concerned primarily with interruptions to income from sickness, unemployment, retirement, and similar issues. New social risks pose new challenges for the welfare policies of European countries, such as the care of children and the elderly, more equal opportunities, the activation of labour markets and the management of needs that arise from welfare state reform, and new opportunities for the coordination of policies at the EU level. The book includes detailed and up-to-date case studies of policy development across these areas in the major European countries. These studies, written by leading experts, are organized in a comparative framework which is followed throughout the book. They highlight the way in which national welfare state regimes and institutional arrangements shape policy-making to meet new social risks. A major feature of this volume is the analysis of developments at the EU level and their interaction with national policies. The EU has been largely unsuccessful in its interventions in old social risk policy, but appears to have more success in its attempts to coordinate policy for new social risks. Experience here may provide lessons for future developments in EU policy-making. The comparative framework of the book seeks to inform an understanding of the development of new social risks in Europe and of the particular political opportunities and challenges that result. It provides an original analysis of pressing issues at the forefront of European welfare policy debate and locates it at the heart of current theoretical debates.
Bonoli, G., George, V. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (2000). European Welfare Futures. Oxford: Polity Press.
European Welfare Futures presents a clear and up-to-date analysis of developments in social policy in the main EU member states. It provides a systematic account of welfare retrenchment and assesses the competing explanations of this process. The authors provide convincing evidence for the view that an 'ever closer union' in social policy will require a much more difficult process than that which led to monetary union.The book makes a major contribution to understanding how welfare policy in Europe will develop over the next few years. It offers an original and wide-ranging account of the forces affecting the direction of policy, and stresses the role of social and political institutions in explaining why countries differ.European Welfare Futures will be essential reading for undergraduates, graduate students and scholars in social policy, sociology, political science, area studies and international relations courses. It will also be of great interest to policy-makers in the EU, especially in the areas of pensions, health, social care and unemployment.
Dean, H. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (1992). Dependency Culture: The Explosion of a Myth. London: Routledge.
The emphasis of this work is placed on a critique of victim-blaming terms such as "dependency culture" and "underclass", the relevance of recent social security reforms to current social trends and an alternative approach to welfare dependency.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1991). Social Change, Social Welfare and Social Science. Prentice Hall / Harvester Wheatsheaf: Prentice Hall Europe (a Pearson Education company).
Addresses new developments in social theory which support the claim that the time of state welfare is past. The book goes on to consider how arguments about human need and moral hazard may be used to establish a secure moral foundation for a citizenship right to welfare
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Papadakis, E. (1987). Private Provision Public Welfare. Prentice-Hall .
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1985). Public Opinion, Ideology, and State Welfare . Routledge .
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Dale, J. (1981). Social Theory and Social Welfare. Hodder Arnold.
Monograph
Vasiljevic, M. et al. (2013). Reasoning about extreme events: A review of behavioural biases in relation to catastrophe risks. Lighthill Risk Network. Available at: https://connect.innovateuk.org/documents/3336350/3794724/Reasoning+about+extreme+events+A+review+of+behavioural+biases+in+relation+to+catastrophe+risks.pdf/43b4149f-2a62-4611-9c71-7e9bf83c5638.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
The present report outlines behavioural biases studied in the literature in relation to the way people reason
about and respond to catastrophe risks. The project is led by the Lighthill Risk Network, in collaboration with a
team of social and behavioural researchers from the University of Kent.
The aim of this report is to increase awareness of selected behavioural risks, and to highlight ways how biases
can affect insurance purchases and underwriting decisions. The report focuses on catastrophe risk as a priority
area for the insurance industry, and because catastrophe risks have been more widely studied in the literature
than other types of risk.
Weick, M. et al. (2012). Cognition: Minding Risks. Lloyd's. Available at: http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/Lloyds/Reports/Emerging%20Risk%20Reports/CognitionFINAL%20web.pdf.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
Risk identification is one of the keys to successful risk management, but we are not equally aware of all risks. Because the brain filters information, people make decisions based on a subset of the available evidence. This fundamental principle of cognition1 can cause problems in a context such as underwriting where subjective judgments are important.This report introduces insurers and financial decision makers to some fundamental principles of cognition that are important for risk management and discusses how human factors can affect risk perception. The report draws on various areas within psychology and related disciplines to highlight potential biases in risk perception. The report is a follow-up to the Lloyd's Emerging Risks report "Behaviour: Bear, Bull or Lemming" published in 2010, which provides an overview of behavioural theory and discusses the benefits to insurance professionals of being aware of behavioural biases.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2006). The Efficiency Trust Dilemma. ESRC SCARR Network. Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/scarr.
Working paper reviewing new data on the problem of ensuring greater cost-efficiency in a more competitive world and maintaining value-based trust.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). Public Expectations of Pension Provision. Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. Available at: http://www.actuaries.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/33053/PensProvRep.pdf.
This study is based on analysis of data on trust in pensions from the 2002 British
Social Attitudes survey, specially-commissioned focus group interviews and literature
review. It shows:
Current government policies in the field of pensions lead to a dilemma between the
goals of an expanded private sector (which means more private and less state
provision) and guaranteed adequate benefits underwritten by a means-tested
government scheme (which may lead to more state provision). It is difficult to resolve
this without an increase in the resources applied to at least one of the sectors.
Trust in both private and state pensions is low; this makes a solution to the
dilemma more difficult, because it weakens individual propensity to invest and voter
willingness to pay higher taxes.
Trust is socially divided: better educated, more middle class groups tend to have
higher levels of mistrust in both private and state sectors. More working class
groups on lower incomes tend to have higher trust overall, and to report a kind of
grudging trust in the state sector because they believe that they cannot afford an
alternative: 'They won't let you starve, will they?'
Middle class people prefer investments which offer a high degree of user control
and are transparently advantageous. More flexible pension contracts are likely to
be more attractive. Returns which investors believe are superior to and more
secure than those from alternatives (such as buy-to-let or small business), increase
the attractiveness of pensions. These depend on fiscal and regulation regime and
the extent to which contributions from employers are compulsory.
Those on lower incomes will continue to require state support.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). Attitudes to social justice. Institute for Public Policy Research. Available at: http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=275.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zinn, J. (2005). Current Directions in Risk Research: Reinvigorating the Social?. ESRC SCARR Network. Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/scarr.
This paper reviews the main approaches to risk in sociology and psychology. It shows that the former area is developing more constructivist accounts of risk perception and response, which the latter has recently focused more on individualist and subjectivist approaches. Opportunities are thus open for cross-fertilisation and also for a re-invigoration of the contribution of social accounts across the disciplines.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). Psychology, Social Psychology and Risk. ESRC SCARR Network. Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/scarr/publications/Psychology%20Literature%20Review%20WP3.04PTG.pdf.
Reviews literature in psychology and scoial psychology on risk as a bsis for the work of the network.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Daguerre, A. (2004). The New Context of Welfare: State of the Art Paper for the FPV Project: Welfare Reform and the Management of Societal Change. European Comission. Available at: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/citizens/docs/eur20789_screen_en.pdf.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review of comparative research on welfare
reform in Europe and to justify the approach taken in the WRAMSOC project.
BACKGROUND: REVIEW OF RELEVANT COMPARATIVE RESEARCH
Three questions are of central importance in comparative welfare state studies: what is
welfare in a capitalist society? How do you study it? and how do you understand welfare
state change? - object, method and process. The first two questions received most attention
during the early development of the area of study, for the simple reason that welfare states
seemed to be developing on a smooth trajectory of growth. In recent years the obvious
challenges to welfare states have generated interest in understanding change, and focused
attention more on the third - what are the factors causing welfare states to change and how do
they operate?.
The post-war trajectory of welfare state studies started out with simpler approaches to both
object and method that steadily grew more sophisticated, aided by improvements in the
quality and availability of data. Welfare was defined initially in terms of state spending on
defined services or 'welfare effort'(Wilensky and Lebeaux, 1958). Over time this notion
broadened to include output and outcome measures in terms of recipients of services and
benefits and impact on issues such as inequality or labour market participation. The
information used initially relied on official data on spending, but later expanded to include a
range of measures of economic, political and social activity (growth rates, participation of
business, unions and other groups in politics, impact on family and household structure). A
wider range of methods including more sophisticated statistical techniques and, later,
qualitative approaches from political science and sociology were used. One outcome of
growing complexity was that researchers began to move away from unidimensional
approaches to understanding welfare systems and to realise that politics (both party politics
and 'power resources'), institutional structure, different varieties of capitalism and differences
in social structure make a difference to the operation of welfare systems. The problem that
now arises is that so many disparate issues have become relevant to the understanding of
welfare policies that research is extremely difficult to conduct successfully.
Research report (external)
Vickerstaff, S. et al. (2012). Trust and confidence in pensions: A literature review. [Online]. Department for Work and Pensions. Available at: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/WP108.pdf.
This working paper presents the findings of a literature review, originally commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in spring 2009, to look at existing research and analysis on trust and confidence, with special reference to pensions. Its main aim was to provide a greater understanding of the concepts of trust and confidence generally, but especially in relation to pensions. In so doing, the review aimed to cover the relationship between trust and confidence and individuals' attitudes and behaviour around pensions and retirement planning, and issues around measuring trust and confidence in pensions.
The review aimed to explore in depth the prevalence and nature of trust and confidence, including exploring issues such as:
definitions and categories of trust and confidence;
what engenders and influences trust and confidence;
the nature of the relationship between trust, and attitudes and behaviour towards pensions.
The review also aimed to explore existing measures of trust and confidence in pensions and to highlight issues that might potentially have some bearing on policies over pensions information and communications, and future research and analysis in this field.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). Shifting Paradigms of Social Justice.
Sylvester, S. et al. (1998). Public or private? Dental practitioners' beliefs, values and practices. Centre for Health Services Studies.
Report submitted to NHS Executive South Thames. CHSS, University of Kent
Conference or workshop item
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2014). New Welfare Delivers More Jobs, But Are They Any Better? in: Next Left: Building a Welfare Society.. Available at: http://www.feps-europe.eu/en/news/547_next-left-building-a-welfare-society.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
Much discussion of welfare state policy for people of working age centres on what might broadly be termed work-centred welfare or 'new welfare' (activation, social investment, pre-distribution) as opposed to traditional tax-and-spend. This paper reviews the background to this approach, notes that in practice (at least in times of real growth) work-centred approaches seem more successful in mobilising people into work than in reversing disappointing poverty and inequality trends, draws attention to exogenous factors (more intense international competition, falling wage share, the rising return to skill) bearing on these outcomes and presents some recent analysis. This suggests that stronger contractual rights, which do not receive so much attention in much new welfare debate also have a role to play in ensuring that the proceeds of social investment are shared more equitably.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013). The Double Crisis of the Welfare State. in: Social Policy Association Annual Conference.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
The UK welfare state is under unprecedented attack from (1) harsh spending cuts, focussed particularly on benefits and services for women, children, low-paid people and claimers of working age, and (2) a profound restructuring programme, which is fragmenting services and embedding private provision across the state sector. It is proving surprisingly difficult for pro-welfare state actors to make a case for generous state welfare that is both inclusive and electorally attractive. This paper analyses why this is so and what can be done about it. It discusses trends in the development of the welfare state and in discourse about the problems it faces, the trilemma that pro-welfare policy-making faces, various new directions in policy and a reform programme that might help build a more inclusive welfare discourse. The arguments are necessarily compressed in a paper of this length. More extended discussion and further evidence is available in Taylor-Gooby (2013a) with background in Taylor-Gooby 2013b, c, 2012a to d and Taylor-Gooby and Stoker 2011.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). 'Risk Governance: European Experiences’. in: Talk.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). 'Managing Societal Risk'. in: CASS, ESRC, SCARR Conference on risk in China and Europe.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). Peter Townsend, Inequality and the Rich. in: Townsend Memorial Conference.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). ‘Equal Opportunity and Social Justice’ . in: Invited Paper, Intuitive Conceptions of Justice .
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). Is Education the Key to Combining Growth with Justice? . in: Lecture.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). ‘Measuring Research Impact’
. in: ACSS Research Impact Conference .
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). ‘Welfare States and Political Legitimacy’ . in: Invited presentation.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). Welfare States vs. Social risks: Plenary Lecture. in: European Sociological Association.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). ‘Keynote: Nudge: the new politics of behaviour’. in: Battle for Ideas.. Available at: http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2009/session_detail/2500/.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). ‘Gaining Public Trust in Social Policy’. in: Invited presentation as a Distinguished Visitor.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). ‘New Social Risks’. in: EU DG Regio Conference on Social Polarisation.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). Fairness and Equality in Germany and the UK. in: Invited paper.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). ‘Current developments in European Social Policy’. in: Invited presentation as a Distinguished Visitor.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). President of Finland's Lecture. in: Mauno Koivosto annual lecture.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). The Future of Welfare and Reframing Social Citizenship. in: Social Inequality In Europe.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). ‘Fairness and Equality in Germany and the UK’, . in: AGF Programme Final Conference.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). Political Legitimacy and the New Welfare Citizenship Invited keynote. in: Social Policy Association Annual Conference.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). ‘Reframing Social Citizenship’ . in: Invited presentation to Prime Minister et al.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). ‘Trust and Citizen Participation’ . in: Invited Presentation.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2008). Reframing Social Citizenship:
Trust, Disquiet and Welfare State Reform
. in: Richard Titmus Lecture. Jerusalem: Hebrew university.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
Welfare states across Europe are undergoing far-reaching reforms in response to the pressures of globalisation at fiscal and commercial and cultural levels, the shift to a post-industrial labour market and changes in family patterns. Governments seek to ensure that welfare services contribute more to national competitiveness, operate in a more cost-efficient way and are more responsive to consumer demands. One important response is the expansion of policies that stress individual responsibility, greater use of the market and the private sector and new forms of management in social provision. These are based on an individual rational logic of agency.
This paper reviews trends in this direction and examines the UK as an important (and highly self-conscious) site of the development of such programmes, pursuing them with more enthusiasm than other established European welfare states. Work on rational individualism and social interaction indicates that the rational actor approach can sustain horizontal redistribution linked to a principle of reciprocity, but is much weaker in nourishing support for vertical redistribution, concerned to mitigate the social inclusion of those unable to make an equivalent return. It also damages institutional trust based on shared value-commitments. Evidence from attitude surveys, focus groups and individual interviews indicates that support for inclusive welfare and institutional trust are called into question by the new policies, although they may enhance the objective performance of welfare systems. Reforms on the UK model, undertaken for excellent reasons under difficult circumstances, run the risk of eroding welfare state citizenship and longer term electoral support for important aspects of the European welfare state.
Review
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2015). Book Review Symposium,
Tom Clark and Anthony Heath 2015 [2014] Hard Times: Inequality, Recession, Aftermath,
Aftermath, New Haven and London: Yale University Press. British Journal of Sociology [Online] 66:593-597. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12139_5.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2002). Some Useful Sources Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Social Policy and Society 1:81-82.
Analysis of literature
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2000). Time and poverty in western welfare states. Journal of Social Policy 29:167-169.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1999). Postmodernity and the fragmentation of welfare. Journal of Social Policy 28:357-358.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1998). Restructuring the welfare state. Journal of Social Policy 27:136-137.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1994). Dangerous Classes - the Underclass and Social Citizenship - Morris,L . Journal of Social Policy 23:614-616.
Article
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2016). The Divisive Welfare State. Social Policy and Administration.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
An important tradition in social policy writing sees the welfare state as an agent of social cohesion against the conflicts of market capitalism. Social policy in the UK is now developing in a way that directly conflicts with this approach. This may signal the future direction of change in other countries, as crisis and slow growth limit available resources and governments become increasingly committed to neo-liberal and consolidation agenda. The 2010 Conservative-led Coalition and 2015 Conservative governments in the UK use social policy to exacerbate and embed social divisions as part of a project to achieve permanent cuts in welfare state spending without damaging their own electoral chances. This paper reviews the divisive welfare state policies in relation to taxation, benefits for working age people and for immigrants and between pensioners and non-pensioners because these groups cover much of welfare state activity and are currently salient in a way that gives the project political purchase. It goes on to argue that the divisions mask a further neo-liberal long-term project of reducing the proportion of national resources going to all recipients of social spending. In this sense we are all in it together.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2015). Making the Case for the Welfare State. Policy and Politics [Online]:1-18. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/147084414X14081190124376.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
The UK welfare state is under unprecedented attack from (1) harsh spending cuts, focussed particularly on benefits and services for women, children, low-paid people and claimers of working age, and (2) a profound restructuring programme, which is fragmenting services and embedding private provision across the state sector. It is proving surprisingly difficult for pro-welfare state actors to make a case for generous state welfare that is both inclusive and electorally attractive. This paper analyses why this is so and what can be done about it. It discusses trends in the development of state welfare and in the way the issues are understood, the trilemma that pro-welfare policy-making faces, proposals for new directions in policy and a reform programme that might help build a more inclusive welfare discourse. It argues that any government that wishes to build a more inclusive society must implement policies that progressively reframe the way people think about work, reward and the role of government.
Wilde, R. et al. (2015). Private Schools and the Provision of Public Benefit. Journal of Social Policy [Online] 45:1-20. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279415000719.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
Legislative changes and a recent court ruling allow private schools in England and Wales
to determine how to provide the public benefits required to justify their charitable status. We investigate how private school headteachers and other informed stakeholders perceive their public benefit objectives and obligations. We find that schools interpret public beneficiaries widely to include one or more of state school pupils, local communities, other charities, and general society through raising socially responsible adults. Private schools pursue their own goals through public benefit provision, and balance the advantages of public benefit activities against the costs. The schools are not constrained by the 'more than tokenistic' minimum set by the regulator. The findings highlight the difficulties faced by governments who seek to pursue redistributive educational policies through charitable law.
Taylor-Gooby, P., Gumy, J. and Otto, A. (2015). Can ‘New Welfare’ address poverty through more and better jobs? Journal of Social Policy [Online] 44:83-104. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279414000403.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
New welfare has been prominent in recent European social policy debates. It involves mobilising more people into paid work, improving human capital and ensuring fairer access to opportunities. This programme is attractive to business (more workers, better human capital and reduced social conflict to enhance productivity and profitability) and to citizens (more widely accessible job-opportunities with better rewards): a relatively low-cost approach to the difficulties governments face in maintaining support and meeting social goals as inequalities widen.
The general move towards 'new welfare' gathered momentum during the past two decades, given extra impetus by the 2007-9 recession and subsequent stagnation. While employment rates rose during the prosperous years before the crisis, there was no commensurate reduction in poverty. Over the same period the share of economic growth returned to labour fell, labour markets were increasingly de-regulated and inequality increased. This raises the question of whether new welfare's economic (higher employment, improved human capital) and social (better job quality and incomes) goals may come into conflict.
This paper examines data for 17 European countries over the period 2001 to 2007. It shows that new welfare is much more successful at achieving higher employment than at reducing poverty, even during prosperity, and that the approach pays insufficient attention to structural factors, such as the falling wage share, and to institutional issues, such as labour market deregulation.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Waite, E. (2014). From stronger to weaker multi-culturalism?: How the UK policy community sees the future of ethnic diversity policies. N/A.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
Multiculturalism as the dominant approach to managing diversity in the UK has been called into question by politicians, community leaders and academics in recent years. This paper reports interviews about multiculturalism, social cohesion and future policy directions with leading figures in the debate, including Home Affairs Select Committee members, authors of major reports, experts, researchers and academics. The attitudes expressed when discussing overall policy directions do not fit the traditional left-centre-right dimension of British politics but, in most cases, indicate unease at assumed segregative effects of current policy. However, when specific issues (sharia law, faith schooling, dress/diet codes, political representation) are considered the viewpoints of most interviewees are more pragmatic. Relatively few advocate strong policies to impose British values or move decisively away from a general multiculturalist stance. The transition most widely supported would be from stronger to weaker multiculturalism rather than from multiculturalism to a different approach to diversity.
Taylor-Gooby, P., Gumy, J. and Sundberg, T. (2014). Can ‘New Welfare’ Address Poverty through
More and Better Jobs? Journal of Social Policy:1-22.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Waite, E. (2014). Towards a More Pragmatic Multi-Culturalism? How the UK policy community sees the future of ethnic diversity policies. Governance [Online] 27:267-289. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gove.12030.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
Multiculturalism as the dominant approach to managing diversity in the UK has been called into question by politicians, community leaders and academics in recent years. This paper reports interviews about multiculturalism, social cohesion and future directions in policy with leading figures in the debate, including members of the Home Affairs Select Committee, authors of major reports, experts, researchers and academics. The attitudes expressed do not fit the traditional left-centre-right dimension of British politics but, in most cases, indicate unease at the assumed segregative effects of current policy when discussing overall policy directions. However, when specific issues (sharia law, faith schooling, dress and diet codes, political representation) are considered the viewpoints of most of those interviewed are more pragmatic, leading to an incremental approach to future directions in policy. Relatively few respondents, again not typified by party allegiance, advocate strong policies to impose British values or move decisively away from a general multiculturalist stance. The transition most widely supported would be from stronger to weaker multiculturalism rather than from multiculturalism to a different approach to diversity.
Sundberg, T. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013). A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies of Attitudes to Social Policy. Social Policy & Administration [Online] 47:416-433. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spol.12027.
Systematic review (SR) is often promoted as a 'best practice' method to inform both policy-making and policy-evaluation in social policy in the light of the ever-growing volume of research. This article considers an innovative use of the method to advance and refine academic knowledge and illustrates this through a small-scale study of the literature on attitudes to welfare. SR relies on rapid, structured searches of large quantities of material. However, the method has encountered criticism. The article calls for a greater degree of reflection in terms of possible bias in SRs. A pilot using tools from SR methodology to survey attitudes towards social policy is used to demonstrate the problems. These include the US bias of major databases, and weaker reporting of book publications than of articles. SR may help to advance knowledge in social policy, but researchers need to be aware of its weaknesses and possible biases.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013). Why do people stigmatise the poor at a time of rapidly increasing inequality, and what can be done about it? Political Quarterly [Online] 84:31-42. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2013.02435.x.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
This paper starts out from a puzzle. During the past thirty years, incomes have grown more unequal, a small group at the top has captured a much greater share of resources and poverty has increased. Despite this, most people are markedly less likely to want government to redistribute income or tackle poverty and are less sympathetic towards those without jobs. The greater insecurity of many people's lives in the current crisis renders the issue more perplexing. This paper describes trends in inequality, poverty and unemployment; presents new data on attitudes, media discussion and political platforms; discusses theoretical approaches from social psychologists, political scientists, sociologists and other commentators; and considers how a more generous welfare state might be preserved.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013). Riots, demonstrations, strikes and the Coalition programme. Social Policy and Society [Online] 12:1-15. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1474746412000401.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
The current UK government's policies include headlong spending cuts and a far-reaching restructuring of public provision. State welfare arguably contributes to political legitimacy and social stability, as well as to better social conditions and economic prosperity. The fact that current policies bear disproportionately on lower income groups may damage legitimacy.
This article analyses a dataset covering 26 countries for more than two decades to show that spending cuts, privatisation and increases in poverty undermine legitimacy. It uses a direct measure of legitimacy in terms of the frequency of riots and political demonstrations and strikes rather than the usual indirect measures in terms of attitudes and trust in government. Findings in relation to the increased work-centredness of the benefit and labour market reforms are more equivocal: a stricter benefit regime may not undermine legitimacy.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013). Public Policy Futures: a Left Trilemma? Critical Social Policy [Online] 33:406-425. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261018312458044.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
Why is it so hard for the Left to produce a coherent, progressive and practicable response to the crisis, when markets and private enterprise have so obviously failed? One answer is that the Left faces a trilemma in developing adequate, electable and progressive public policy. It must respond adequately to the economic crisis to be seen as competent, it must address the established themes in public opinion to be electable, and it must develop generous and inclusive policies, to be progressive. This paper identifies conflicts in all three areas: low public sector productivity growth and demographic shifts tighten already harsh spending constraints. Entrenched public suspicions of higher taxes for any but the distant rich and a public discourse which makes rigid distinctions between those deserving and undeserving of state welfare conflict with egalitarian or redistributive policies. Both spending constraints and the key themes in public opinion conflict with generous and inclusive policies. The Coalition strategy, by contrast, rests on private enterprise-led recovery, work-ethic values and policies that exclude less deserving groups. It does not face the same problems.
This paper analyses a range of policy programmes suggested by commentators on the centre-left in the light of these points. It concludes that a central task for a progressive strategy is not so much designing the policies which will be attractive and will meet needs effectively as developing the framework of provision which will help to build solidarity and shift public discourse in order to make inclusive and generous policy possible.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2012). Root and Branch Restructuring to Achieve Major Cuts: The Social Policy Programme of the 2010 UK Coalition Government. Social Policy & Administration [Online] 46:61-82. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00797.x.
The 2010 Coalition has set itself the challenge of combining an unprecedentedly rapid and profound retrenchment with a fundamental restructuring of the public sector, both to be accomplished within five years. The immediate justification is a presumed need to reduce national indebtedness. The longer-term goal is to shrink the state, free up the market and set British political economy on a new course.
The programme has encountered a number of set-backs and some elements appear more likely to be realized than others. This article considers the objectives of the Coalition programme and the likely outcomes, using evidence from a number of sources including comparisons with the experience of retrenchment elsewhere and analysis of previous rounds of public spending cut-backs.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2011). Security, Equality, Opportunity. Journal of European Social Policy [Online] 21:150-163. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0958928710385735.
Welfare states face pressures from various directions. This paper uses data from the 2008 European Social Survey to consider whether citizen attitudes will provide continuing support for the welfare state in more difficult times. Sustainability requires current support for the idea that government should be responsible for provision. It also depends upon trust that government can and will continue to deliver good quality services that will meet people's needs in an uncertain future. The analysis takes into account the extent to which welfare states are successful in providing citizens with security, equality of outcome and better opportunities, using multi-level models. Individual characteristics are most important in explaining both support and trust. At the national level, the data indicates that opportunity is understood more in terms of collective policies to mitigate disadvantage rather than individual policies to strengthen incentives. Support for and trust in the welfare state pull in opposite directions: greater security weakens support but reinforces trust. Pressures on state welfare may diminish the feeling of security so that support for state provision grows, but does so in a climate of more equivocal trust in government services.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2011). Taking advantage: informal social mechanisms and equal opportunities policies. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy [Online] 31:253-271. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443331111141255.
European welfare states have enjoyed some success in addressing both horizontal and vertical income inequalities (Atkinson, 1998; Berthoud, 2004). They have been less effective in tackling class inequalities and in promoting social mobility for women and men (Crompton, 2008, ch 7 and 8, Lister, 2003, Breen, 2004 ch.3, Blanden et al., 2007, Corak, 2004, ch. 1, Mazunder 2005, 80). This paper focuses on one aspect: the processes whereby privileged groups seek to ensure that their children have better opportunities than other groups to occupy the most advantageous positions in society. It pays particular attention to informal processes of social relationship and contacts and the role of individual values and aspirations, on the grounds that a major element in current reform programmes is the reduction of state intervention and a shift in responsibility towards individuals. It does so using recent quantitative data which makes possible assessment of the relative importance of these process in different European welfare states.
One finding of much of the work on intergenerational social mobility is that opportunities for women and men have improved somewhat during the past 30 years, as a result of improved access to education and employment (Blanden et al 2007, Breen and Luijkx 2004, 73). However, clear gender gaps in outcomes (Misra et al., 2007), employment (Crompton, 2006), educational opportunity (Buchannan et al, 2008), earnings (OECD 2004, 70-72), contribution to care-work (Cooke 2009) and access to positions of authority (EU 2009a) remain. For various reasons, opportunity and access have emerged as key themes in current policy debates, summed up in the EU's Renewed Social Agenda: 'Europeans face unprecedented opportunities, more choice and improved living conditions. ... the focus needs to be on empowering and enabling individuals to realise their potential while ... helping those who are unable to do so' (2008, section 1).
The research considers the implications of evidence on the reproduction of class and gender privilege for reform programmes which seek to tackle the issue by extending opportunities rather than ensure more equal outcomes. It's particular contribution is to stress the importance of the informal social processes which such reforms find hardest to tackle. The paper falls into five sections: brief reviews of literature on policies and on concepts; discussion of the methods appropriate for investigating the relevant social processes; some findings on the transmission of privilege; and discussion and conclusions.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2011). Does risk society erode welfare state solidarity? Policy and Politics [Online] 39:147-161. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557310X519641.
An influential literature suggests that one important feature of the transition from modern industrial society is the erosion of existing solidarities. People increasingly understand the risks and uncertainties they face in life as issues of personal failure and responsibility rather than as social problems to be addressed through collective action. A corresponding welfare state literature understands contemporary processes of social policy change as highlighting individual responsibility and proactivity as a result of the constraints on government from globalisation, post-industrialism and other changes.
This article uses recent attitude survey data to investigate whether risk society dissolves the solidarities that provided the foundation for the traditional welfare state, and how far it offers a basis for new solidarities that may maintain support for vulnerable groups.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Stoker, G. (2011). The Coalition Programme: A New Vision for Britain or Politics as Usual? Political Quarterly [Online] 82:4-15. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2011.02169.x.
The Coalition programme includes restructuring public provision through reforms and cuts which will take public spending in the Britain below that in the US. This article explores whether the Coalition agenda is best understood as a new approach to Britain's deep-seated economic short-comings or simply as the normal politics of gaining and retaining power. It analyses the current government's programme, identifies the common features across the range of policies and discusses how they are likely to develop as they encounter set-backs.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2011). Opportunity and Solidarity. Journal of Social Policy [Online] 40:453-470. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279410000681.
Current restructuring of provision across European welfare states emphasizes proactivity, individual responsibility and access to opportunities. Much established social protection rests on a more passive approach and seeks to provide security against the risks encountered during a normal life-course, together with some redistribution towards the poor. A more liberal individualism may suit a more globalised and post-industrial world in which the logic of markets is more powerful and the working class correspondingly weaker. From one perspective, it risks damaging the support for collective provision on which the welfare state rests. This paper uses data from the 2008 European Social Survey to examine whether the shift in responsibility for outcomes more towards individuals may threaten the political legitimacy of welfare states. It shows that a corresponding proactivity of government to secure good access to more equal opportunities for vulnerable groups is required to support individual proactivity in grasping opportunities.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Wallace, A. (2010). New Labour and reform of the English NHS: user views and attitudes. Health Expectations [Online] 13:208-217. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00582.x.
The British National Health Service has undergone
significant restructuring in recent years. In England this has taken
a distinctive direction where the New Labour Government has
embraced and intensified the influence of market principles towards
its vision of a modernized NHS. This has entailed the introduction
of competition and incentives for providers of NHS care and the
expansion of choice for patients.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Martin, R. (2010). Fairness, Equality and Legitimacy: a qualitative comparative study of Germany and the UK. Social Policy & Administration [Online] 44:85-103. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2009.00701.x.
Qualtiative comparative attitude study showing that conceptions of legitimacy and of equal opportunity vary between UK and Germany
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Cebulla, A. (2010). The Risk Society Hypothesis: an empirical test using longitudinal survey data. Journal of Risk Research [Online] 13:731-752. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.488744.
This paper seeks to test the influential 'risk society' thesis using quantitative data from the major UK longitudinal surveys. Two hypotheses are derived from the thesis: distanciation (the claim that more recent generations understand and manage their social lives in relation to risk and uncertainty in substantially different ways from those of their parents' generation) and reflexivity (the view that individuals are increasingly aware of their status in a detraditionalised social order and of their responsibility to manage their own life course).
Empirical testing shows that greater distanciation and reflexivity can be identified in a comparison of the education, employment and partnership experience of earlier and later cohorts, but that these factors vary substantially for different social groups. Success in planning one's life and attaining the occupational status to which one initially aspired is increasingly associated with greater satisfaction and, with respect to career objectives, repeated change in jobs. But these outcomes are least likely to be available to those from the manual working class, especially those whose aspirations remain within that group. Risk society increasingly offers opportunities to 'write one's own biography' but it is important to be clear that success in doing so is socially structured.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Wallace, A. (2009). Public Values and Public Trust: Responses to Welfare State Reform in the UK. Journal of Social Policy [Online] 38:401-419. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279409003055.
The current reform programme in the UK welfare state appears to improve cost-efficiency and responsiveness in many areas, but runs the risk of generating further problems. This paper argues that the justification for the new directions in policy rest ultimately on a particular understanding of agency. The limitations of this account explain why proponents of the reforms tend not to recognise or pay adequate attention to problems of legitimacy and public trust. Evidence from a new survey is used to demonstrate this in the context of the reform of the National Health Service
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). Reframing Social Citizenship. Social Security:11-48.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2008). Assumptive Worlds and Images of Agency: Academic Social
Policy in the Twenty-first Century? Social Policy and Society [Online] 7:269-280. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1474746408004259.
As many commentators have pointed out, the pressures facing modern welfare states are formidable. One response by government is to place greater emphasis on a policy-making paradigm which rests on an individual rational actor account of agency. This finds its intellectual home in the leading tradition of neo-classical economics, its ideological home in a politics of active citizenry and equality of opportunity and its institutional home in the mechanisms by which the Treasury currently directs social policy.
The resulting policies have strengths in delivering productivity improvements and responsiveness to consumer demand, but weaknesses in accommodating the value positions of an increasingly diverse society, in sustaining the social cohesion necessary to the continuance of state welfare and in confronting the structural basis of some social interests. These issues have traditionally been recognised in the sociology of values, the psychology of trust and the political science of power.
One strength of academic social policy is that it is a field of study in which a number of disciplines are deployed. The ascendancy of one paradigm may obscure the contribution of others. It is hard for social policy academics to gain recognition when they speak a different language from that of policy-making at the highest level.
Acknowledgements:
This paper benefited from discussion with Alice Lakeman, Rose Martin, Robert Page, Jan Pahl, Fiona Williams and anonymous referees.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2008). Choice and Values: individualized rational action and social goals Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Journal of Social Policy [Online] 37:167-185. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279407001699.
For excellent reasons, in response to pressures from social, economic and political changes, welfare states are undergoing reform. A central theme in the new policies, particularly influential in the UK, is the use of incentives through activation programmes and reforms to public sector management to promote rational responsible choices by both service users and providers. The theoretical underpinning of this approach relies on a model of people as plural in their values, but holding values that are independent from social context and institutional framework. Policy seeks to harness those values to produce desired behaviour. This article focuses on two relevant literatures. Analyses of rational action at an individual level by economic psychologists, evolutionary biologists and game theorists indicate that the context in which choices are framed influences responses. Further work by economic sociologists and social psychologists suggests that the values that guide behaviour have an important social element as normative systems embodied in institutional frameworks. The norms appropriate to market interactions typically differ from welfare norms, so that different value frameworks and responses apply. The implication is that the transition to quasi-market and individualised incentive systems risks damaging the norms that sanction support for distant but vulnerable groups. The article falls into three sections: reviewing the background to reform and the emergence of an emphasis on individualised rational choice, considering each of the literatures mentioned above and discussing policy consequences.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2008). Trust and Welfare State Reform: the example of the NHS Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Social Policy & Administration [Online] 42:288-306. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2007.00592.x.
This article discusses the impact of New Public Management on public trust in welfare state institutions, using the example of NHS reform. Discussion of trust in public institutions across political science, psychology and sociology indicates that it is based on both rational/objective considerations (competence and capacity to deliver the service) and affectual/subjective factors (shared values, belief that the trustee shares the trustor's interests). The New Public Management foregrounds individual responsibility and incentives for both suppliers and users of services, in the NHS example in quasi-markets, management by target and patient choice. These accord with an individualized market rational-actor model rather than with affective considerations. Analysis of attitude survey data on the NHS confirms that rational/objective and affectual/subjective factors contribute to public trust in this field. However, a comparison between perceptions in England, where the internal market has been vigorously pursued, and Scotland, where the purchaser/provider split was discarded after devolution, indicate that the market does not offer a royal road to perceptions of superior quality in the objective factors. Conversely, the more market-centred system can make progress in relation to the more subjective affectual factors.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2008). The New Welfare Settlement in Europe Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. European Societies [Online] 10:3-24. Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/09571260701526964.
The post-war settlement rested on confidence that state welfare combined with neo-Keynesian economic management supported economic progress and enhanced social stability. New approaches from the 1970s onwards inspired by monetarism saw extensive state welfare as a damaging economic burden. The welfare settlement that is currently emerging in European debates argues that a welfare state centred on social investment, combined with appropriate de-regulation and use of social benefits to support employment mobility can again contribute to economic and social objectives in a virtuous spiral of growth and justice. In practice, however, most European states have been far more successful in what might broadly be called negative activation (less regulation, restrictions on passive benefits and targeted help for high-risk groups), than in investment to enhance the knowledge base and improve mobility. The differences between the new social investment welfare state and more limited de-regulated welfare system seem to be less marked in practice than the tenor of policy debate implies.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2008). Sociological approaches to risk: strong in analysis but weak in policy influence in recent UK developments. Journal of Risk Research [Online] 11:863-876. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669870701876592 .
Sociological approaches to risk and uncertainty are well-developed. These approaches have played an important role in analysing the significance of risk and uncertainty in modern social life. However, it is approaches based on rational actor perspectives in New Public Management that have become pre-eminent in handling social risks in recent UK policies. This paper tackles the puzzle of why sociology is strong in critique but much weaker in policy influence by pointing to the institutional and contextual standing of approaches which offer a natural home to individual rational actor approaches within UK government.
Approaches that understand and analyse risk in statistical terms have been particularly influential in many aspects of modern life. A second stream, that has tended to attract less attention, stresses linkages between these approaches and the growth of particular institutions. The challenges faced by modern states in a post-industrial and globalised world are widely discussed. An important response, particularly prominent in the UK and especially in social policy-making, has been New Public Management, associated with an individual rational actor paradigm. Sociological approaches to risk have contributed a number of critiques of this development, however these critiques have failed to gain much purchase on policy-making. One reason is the extent to which approaches which rest on an individual rational actor paradigm are entrenched within the institutional framework of policy-making. This paradigm rests on a different approach to agency than that which is most influential in sociology.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2007). Justifying State Welfare, The contribution of social policy to social cohesion in market capitalism. Social Security Studies 2:10-29.
1. The development of Western welfare states falls into three phases:
The post-war settlement: stable and sustained expansion during the three post-war decades;
Challenges from shifts in labour markets, economic globalisation, population ageing, family and household patterns and other factors. These have called the continued viability of the settlement into question from the later 1970s onwards; and
Recent moves toward a new settlement.
2. The post-war settlement rested on confidence that state welfare, combined with neo-Keynesian economic management supported economic progress and enhanced social stability. New approaches from the 1970s onwards inspired by monetarism saw extensive welfare states as a damaging economic burden, implying that the welfare state should be seen as obsolete. The welfare settlement that is currently emerging argues that a welfare state centred on social investment can again contribute to economic and social objectives in a virtuous spiral of growth and justice.
3. Policy documents from EU and OECD set out a combined economic and social case for the social investment model. These arguments stress the importance of enhancing employment opportunities in a more flexible and dynamic labour market. The view that government should intervene through education and a benefit system that encourages entry into paid work and supports movement between jobs has tended to predominate over endorsement of de-regulation and benefit cut backs as the best route to greater labour market flexibility.
4. The new welfare state settlement has been successfully established, against the loose monetarist argument that welfare spending is simply a burden on economic progress. Different variants are pursued in national contexts that vary according to welfare state traditions and policy-making frameworks. In most cases there is more emphasis on activation through benefit reform and programmes for high-risk groups than on investment in human capital and research and development. The outcomes in terms of equality of outcome and opportunity vary, just as they did in traditional welfare states.
5. Nordic countries, exemplified by Sweden, are most successful in combining growth and social cohesion. The UK is much more successful in the former area than in the latter. The Nordic model is expensive and depends on high taxes. More generally, European welfare state settlements have developed in specific politico-economic contexts which are hard to replicate elsewhere.
6. East Asian societies have generally achieved high levels of investment in human capital and research and development leading to high growth; Europe may have much to learn from East Asia in stimulating such investment, while the European tradition of achieving social cohesion through welfare state spending may be relevant to East Asian futures.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zinn, J. (2006). Current Directions in Risk Research: New developments in psychology and sociology Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Risk Analysis [Online] 26:397-411. Available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118562883/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0.
This article reviews the main approaches to risk in psychology and sociology and considers recent developments. It shows that research continues from a wide range of perspectives. Some developments in psychological thinking have recently acknowledged the importance of the cultural framing of risk perceptions and responses and the positive power of emotions to manage uncertainties, while some streams of work in sociology have moved toward more individualist approaches. These converging processes open opportunities for cross-fertilization and for using insights from both disciplines in the development of research.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2006). Social Divisions of Trust: Scepticism and Democracy in the GM Nation? Debate Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Journal of Risk Research [Online] 9:75-95. Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/13669870500288742.
This paper reviews recent developments in research on institutional and expert trust across a number of disciplines to show that a deferential and accepting public stance in relation to officially sanctioned judgements is increasingly being replaced by a more sceptical approach. One outcome is a move towards greater public engagement in issues of high profile new technology. This paper reviews the literature and considers the most substantial public engagement exercise in the UK so far the GM Nation? debate in 2002-3. It shows that scepticism is widespread but that the relation between scepticism and trust differs across social groups. Among the more privileged scepticism undermines trust. Among working class and less well educated groups scepticism and trust are positively correlated
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2006). The rational actor reform paradigm: delivering the goods but destroying public trust? International Journal of Social Quality [Online] 6:121-141. Available at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/berghahn/ejsq/2006/00000006/00000002/art00007?token=005a1f7787ce2fb9ccfd10a39412f415d4877253e7b2e2b605f5a38382530482972715a614f6d4e227a75b9fd4.
This paper discusses the impact of an important trend in service delivery in response to substantial pressures that now face European welfare states: the New Public Management, combining centrally imposed targets and the promotion of market systems within state services. It traces the logic underlying the reform back to the rational self-regarding actor theories of human behaviour of the Enlightenment. Using the example of the UK NHS, recently reformed in a way that follows the rational actor paradigm, it considers the impact on long-term public trust.
The puzzle with the NHS reform is why, despite the fact that objective service standards have improved in a number of prominent areas, public satisfaction with and trust in the service has declined abruptly. Discussion of theories of trust across a range of social science and of attitude survey data indicates that the answer lies in the nature of trust. Trust involves both rational and value components and the reforms do everything fort the former and nothing for the later. The risk for social quality is that new policies driven by a rational actor logic much favoured by Treasury departments, undermine the value side of trust and lead to a deterioration in public support for state welfare.
Larsen, T., Taylor-Gooby, P. and Kananen, J. (2006). New Labour’s policy style: a mix of policy approaches Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Journal of Social Policy [Online] 35:629-649. Available at: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=468631.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2006). Trust, Risk and Health Care Reform. Health, Risk & Society [Online] 8:93-103. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698570600677092 .
Across the developed world, governments face severe challenges in health care reform as demand rises
and resource constraints grow more stringent. In the UK, the current government is devoting
considerable resources to welfare state reform and (arguably) achieving real improvements in services
such as the NHS and education. Despite this, the reforms remain highly controversial and there is
considerable concern about lack of trust in the new welfare policies. A decline in trust may undermine
the public acceptability of the reforms and threaten the ability of government to gain electoral support
for them. Recent work in sociology, political science and psychology indicates that rational deliberative
and non-rational valued-based or affective factors contribute to trust in institutions. At the same time,
theoretical arguments suggest an increasing need for public trust. Trust facilitates the co-ordination of
complex enterprises under conditions of uncertainty, especially valuable at a time when rising demand
and intensifying pressures for spending constraint provide a continuing impetus for reform. One
possibility is that policies designed within a rational actor framework may erode the non-rational
aspects of trust, so that the service improves but trust in it declines, with consequences for the political
sustainability of reformed health care systems. Risk research in health care has a good opportunity to
consider issues of institutional trust and to build inter-disciplinary links in doing so.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). Is the future American? Or, can left politics preserve European welfare states from erosion through growing 'Racial' diversity? Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Journal of Social Policy [Online] 34:661-672. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279405009207 .
The welfare state is the distinctive contribution of Europe to the modern world. Other places do market capitalism better, and democracy, art and culture at least as well. However, the future of the European welfare state is in question, as a result of economic globalisation, pressures from population ageing and other social changes and the dominance of an EU primarily committed to creating an open market to rival that of the US. An important recent critique of the welfare state project argues that social cohesion and diversity are simply incompatible - with the implication, that as Europe grows more diverse, welfare states will wither. An influential variant of this argument uses statistical modelling to support the argument that greater ethnic diversity accounts for the failure of the US to develop political support for a welfare state on European lines (and implies that Europe's future is American). This article demonstrates that the model used fails to take into account the significance of left politics in European countries. The evidence is that the left substantially counteracts the impact of greater diversity on welfare states in Europe. The case that increased migration will undermine popular commitment to social spending is not proven.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). Pervasive uncertainty in second modernity: an empirical test. Sociological Research Online [Online] 10. Available at: http:www.socresonline.org.uk/10/4/taylor-gooby.html.
Recent discussion of social change implies that, for a number of reasons, to do with globalisation, shifts in family life styles and labour markets, more critical attitudes toward the authority of officials and experts and greater awareness of possibilities and options, social life is more strongly affected by a sense of uncertainty. It also implies that uncertainty is pervasive and not specifically linked to fears about specific contingencies. It is associated with an orientation towards self-direction and a rejection of tradition and conformity. This thesis has been widely discussed, but rarely tested using quantitative data. This paper uses data from a recent national survey carried out by the ESRC Social Contexts and Responses to Risk network to show that uncertainty and security concerns are strong, but are in fact linked to traditionalism and conformity rather than to a critical and reflexive awareness. A high value is attached to self-direction, but this is linked to privileged social status rather than attitudes of pervasive social uncertainty. In general the values posited by recent discussion seem to be associated more closely with immediate social position than with the society-wide impact of social change.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). Uncertainty, Trust and Pensions: the case of the UK reforms Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Social Policy & Administration [Online] 39:217-232. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2005.00436.x.
Trust is valuable in facilitating social cooperation and is often thought to be helpful in the running of a complex modern welfare state. However, a number of sociologists, psychologists and political scientists have recently argued that trust in social institutions is in decline. One approach argues that the issue is compounded by a shift towards a more active and discriminating trust as part of a social transition towards a more reflexive society, and goes on to suggest that people often choose to place their active trust in non-state provision. This paper examines recent quantitative and qualitative evidence on trust in state and non-state pensions in the UK, as a context where current policy developments throw the general issues into sharp relief. It shows that patterns of trust in this setting can be understood in active terms, but that social divisions remain important in determining how active trust operates in practice. More vulnerable groups put their trust in the state, through lack of an alternative, while more confident and better-off groups tend to pursue investment strategies which they believe will give them more individual control over their money. Social divisions remain important during current social transitions, and often receive less attention than they merit in theoretical writing.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). How Good is Social Policy Research? Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Policy World:24-24.
Discussion of the quality offo social policy research and of alternative explanations of grades in 2001 RAE
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). Strengthening Social Safety-Nets in Europe. Social Policy and Society.
European position paper and overview
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). Open Markets and Welfare Values Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. European Societies 6:29-48.
Investigates impact of labour market flexibility and welfare state reform on support for social spending using a range of measures.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Daguerre, A. (2004). Neglecting Europe Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Journal of European Social Policy 14:25-39.
Analysis of policy-learning in relation to the EU with particular relevance to the UK and discussion of 6 other countries.
Taylor-Gooby, P., Larsen, T. and Kananen, J. (2004). Market Means: Welfare Ends: the UK Welfare State Experiment. Journal of Social Policy 33:573-592.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). New Social Risks in Post-Industrial Society Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. International Social Security Review [Online] 57:45-64. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-246X.2004.00194.x.
Detailed analysis of attitude survey and other data from a range of European coutnries to show that responses to flexible labour market increasingly structured by post-industrialism
Daguerre, A. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (2003). Adaptation to Labour Market Change in France and the UK: Convergent or Parallel tracks? Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Social Policy & Administration [Online] 37:625-639. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00362.
Abstract: France and the UK are markedly different welfare states, both in terms of regime hype and in terms of the varying degree of state responsibility for reconciling work and family life. One recent theoretical strand suggests that welfare states will tend to grow more similar since they face broadly similar pressures. This paper discusses the policy responses in France and the UK to labour market Pressures resulting from enhanced international competition, technological development and family change during the past decade. These responses are set in the context of European debates about the desirability of greater flexibility, up-skilling and the activation of unemployed people, about the childcare needs of women workers and about the importance of paid work in reducing poverty and inequality. The analysis shows that trends to convergence are limited.
Taylor-Gooby, P., Hastie, C. and Bromley, C. (2003). Querulous Citizens: Welfare Knowledge and the Limits to Welfare Reform. Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Social Policy & Administration [Online] 37:1-20. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00320.
Welfare spending in the UK is too low to provide services at a level to which most citizens aspire. Politicians generally do not believe that people would be willing to pay higher taxes for better services. Recent theoretical work in political science argues that trust in state institutions is in decline and, in sociology, that citizens are becoming more independent, reflexive and keen to take responsibility for meeting their own needs. This paper uses data from a recent ESRC-financed national survey to examine some of the recent arguments seeking to justify the claim that more tax is electorally unfeasible. It shows that support for extra spending is not confined to hypothecated taxes for high-profile services such as the NHS and has not been undermined by a decline in citizen trust in the welfare state or by a rejection of collective solutions.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Hastie, C. (2003). Paying for 'World Class' Services: A British Dilemma. Journal of Social Policy [Online] 32:271-288. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279402006992.
Welfare spending in the UK is too low to provide services at the level to which most citizens aspire. The problem is that, although most people state in surveys that they would like to pay higher taxes for better services, politicians from all the main parties generally do not believe that they would put their vote where their mouth is. Advocates of higher spending increasingly retreat to a position of promoting ear-marked taxes for specific, highly favoured services, as in the 2002 Budget plan to finance the cost of improvements in the highly valued NHS through increased National Insurance Contributions. Recent theoretical work further undermines arguments for higher state spending: an important strand in political science argues that trust in state institutions is in decline, and work in sociology claims that citizens are becoming more independent, reflexive and keen to take responsibility for meeting their own needs. This paper uses data from a recent ESRC-financed national survey to examine these arguments. It shows real support for hypothecated taxes for the NHS, and more generalised support for higher taxes for welfare provision. Such support is not undermined by a decline in citizen trust in the welfare state or by a rejection of collective solutions. However, there is little endorsement of hypothecated taxation in other areas, and the use of such measures may encourage citizens in a pick-and-mix approach to welfare services.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2003). Open markets versus welfare citizenship: Conflicting approaches to policy convergence in Europe. Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Social Policy & Administration [Online] 37:539-554. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00357.
Abstract: Few would have predicted the rapid progress of the EU in developing common economic institutions 20 or 30 years ago, although many commentators might have foreseen the relatively slow development of convergent social policies. This paper sets the European debate in the context Of the path-breaking work of Polanyi and Schumpeter at the end of the Second World War. It argues that the economic institutions of the EU are at least as important as the social policy institutions in understanding current developments, and suggests that a commitment to a broadly liberal market agenda at the economic level constrains and moulds social policies.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Hastie, C. (2003). Dissatisfaction with the NHS: Too few resources, or the "new consumerism"?
Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Political Quarterly [Online] 74:233-240. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.00533.
Uses original data to examine issue of whether a consumerist approach damages collective support for the NHS.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2002). Varieties of Risk Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Health, Risk & Society [Online] 4:109-111. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698570220137006.
Examines conceptual frameworks from sociology, psychology and decision theory appleid to risk in relation to health issues and develops a new approach.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2002). Introduction: Themed Section on Social Welfare and Social Democracy Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Social Policy and Society 1:35-36.
For much of the post-war period, the advanced industrial nations of Europe congratulated themselves on having it both ways: successful capitalist economies which also provided effective welfare states affluence plus social justice. Commentators have traditionally seen social democracy as the friend of social welfare. More recently, the virtuous liaison of social democratic politics with successful democratic welfare capitalism has been called into question. Welfare states face pressures from economic globalisation, population ageing, spending constraint and changes in labour markets and in family patterns; it is argued that traditional social democratic approaches find it difficult to pursue policies that will enable welfare states to adapt and continue to combine high social standards with economic growth in the changed conditions of the twenty-first century. In short, the social democratic welfare state is outmoded.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2002). The Silver Age of the Welfare State: Perspectives on Resilience. Journal of Social Policy 31:597-622.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2001). Risk, Contingency and the Third Way: Evidence from BHPS and Qualitative Studies Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Social Policy & Administration [Online] 35:195-211. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00227.
Detailed analysis of attitudes to state and private pensions using attitude survey and original focus group and interview data. Shows that trust in both sectors low and class plays an important role.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2001). Sustaining State Welfare in Hard Times: Who Will Foot the Bill? Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Journal of European Social Policy 11:133-147.
Recent studies of how European welfare systems are responding to current pressures agree that welfare stares display remarkable resilience. They are being reformed rather than dismantled. New policies are concerned To contain costs and to promote activation, stressing the contribution of welfare to economic competitiveness. Will people support cost constraint? This paper analyses attitude survey data from the 1980s and 1990s to show that approval of the main welfare services is high, bur, in contrast to the findings of earlier studies, there is now some evidence of declining support. Attitudes are not structured according to the accounts of the 'new politics' of welfare (which imply that each regime will produce its own pattern of interests in relation to the groups whose interests are entrenched by current arrangements) but reflect broad lines of income, age and gender, cross-cutting national differences. There is little support for cuts in social services, bur an equally low level of willingness to pay the extra taxes and social contributions required to maintain current standards of provision in the face of rising pressures on welfare. An agenda of activation is likely to prove more acceptable politically than one of cost constraint in all regimes. The implication is that European welfare states face a straitened future, between increasing demands and constrained resources, which may lead public opinion support to dwindle further.
Taylor-Gooby, P. et al. (2000). Knights, Knaves and gnashers: professional values and private dentistry. Journal of Social Policy 29:375-395.
This article applies Le Grand's distinction between knightly and knavish motivations to the behaviour of dentists in choosing whether to treat patients on the NHS or privately. Using national quantitative and discursive surveys, it shows that dentists' notions of their own interests centre on independent small-business entrepreneurship and their professional culture defines patient interest in terms of access to clinically autonomous practice based on a restorative paradigm. Government attempts to promote preventive dentistry in the context of the weakening in dentists' bargaining position as general dental health improves and the determination of the profession to protect high remuneration have led to conflict. Both knavish and knightly motives (understood from the perspective of dentists' professional culture) lead dentists to exit from the NHS, Any analysis of 'robust' policies, designed to accommodate both motivations, must take into account social factors such as professional cultures which influence how practitioners understand their own interests and those of their clients.
Sylvester, S. et al. (2000). Going Private? Exploring the drift away from the NHS. Primary Dental Care [Online] 7:49-53. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/135576100322732166.
The perception that dentistry is being privatised is widespread. A two-phase study was undertaken to investigate the factors influencing dentists' decisions to practise in the public and or private sectors. In phase I a national postal survey of general dental practitioners (n=1011) explored differences in working practices and experience of NHS and non-NHS work. Survey data were supplemented in phase II by in-depth interviews with four subsamples of dentists in two regions.The survey found that although the majority of dentists continued to treat the majority of their patients within the NHS since the introduction of the 1990 contract patterns of practice have changed. Where private dentistry was increasing, it was regionally variable and arose mainly from concerns with financial security, maintaining quality of work and autonomy. Ideological differences were apparent in relation to differences in practice mix. Those who continued to work in the NHS, because of insufficient demand for private dentistry, did so in order to provide access to treatment and to maintain a reliable source of income and pension rights. Dentists interviewed expressed reluctance in withdrawing from NHS practice. Disillusionment with government policy and recognition of the marginal nature of dental health issues suggests that current trends will continue.
Calnan, M. et al. (2000). Doing business in the NHS: exploring dentists' decisions to practise in the public and private sectors. Sociology of Health & Illness [Online] 22:742-764. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00229.
Through discussion of the findings of a national study of general dental practitioners this paper explores the beliefs, values and practices of dentists, the factors that influence their decisions to practise in the public and/or private sectors, and their experiences of making the transition towards increased private practice. In examining particularly their ideological beliefs, attitudes to business and entrepreneurial behaviour, it considers the appropriateness in sociological thinking of the division between perspectives which have perceived professional behaviour as primarily motivated by economic self-interest and occupational control, and those which have considered professional behaviour to be characterised by altruistic values and a public-spirited concern for patient welfare.
Calnan, M. et al. (2000). Doing Business in the NHS: Exploring dentists' decisions to practice in the public and private sectors. Sociology of Health & Illness [Online] 22:742-764. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00229.
Through discussion of the findings of a national study of general dental practitioners this paper explores the beliefs, values and practices of dentists, the factors that influence their decisions to practise in the public and/or private sectors, and their experiences of making the transition towards increased private practice. In examining particularly their ideological beliefs, attitudes to business and entrepreneurial behaviour, it considers the appropriateness in sociological thinking of the division between perspectives which have perceived professional behaviour as primarily motivated by economic self-interest and occupational control, and those which have considered professional behaviour to be characterised by altruistic values and a public-spirited concern for patient welfare.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1999). Bipolar bugbears - Comment on Colin Hay: 'Globalisation, welfare retrenchment and 'the logic of no alternative': Why second best won't do'. Journal of Social Policy [Online] 28:299-303. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279499005565.
This article responds to the view that it is now time to move on from debates about post-Fordism and the new sociology of welfare. It argues that it is important to retain the traditional agenda of social welfare (redistributive state policies designed to promote social integration and challenge the outcomes of the market) at a time when an influential position in sociology is playing down the significance of structural factors as an obstacle to progress in welfare.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1999). Markets and motives - Trust and egoism in welfare markets. Journal of Social Policy [Online] 28:97-114. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279499005450.
Enthusiasm for the expansion of markets in welfare reflects the currency of assumptions derived fi om rational choice theory among policy-makers. This article reviews recent evidence from the ESRC's Economic Beliefs and Behaviour programme that calls into question the basic tenet of the rational choice approach - that individual choices are driven by instrumental rationality - and argues that welfare markets require a normative framework in which trust plays an important role. Experimental evidence from recent work in economic psychology indicates that individuals often display a level of trust in market interactions that is hard to explain on the basis of simple rationality, but that such trust is fragile and easily undermined by egoistic action. Lack of attention to the normative issues which the rational choice approach fails to capture may lead to the design of markets which are inefficient in meeting the aims of policy-makers and which deplete the moral legacy on which many welfare markets in practice depend.
Sylvester, S. et al. (1999). Filling in time. Health Service Journal 109:22-23.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1999). Policy change at a time of retrenchment: Recent pension reform in France, Germany, Italy and the UK. Social Policy & Administration [Online] 33:1-19. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00128.
Two influential recent approaches to social policy in Europe imply (for different reasons) that the reforms currently on the agenda, which typically involve cost-containment, are peculiarly difficult to achieve. Esping-Andersen sees much of Europe as set in a "frozen welfare landscape": due to the power of the interests advantaged by the status quo. Pierson sees retrenchment as a peculiarly difficult Problem for all governments, regardless of their political ideology. This paper reviews recent pension policy in France, Germany, Italy and the UK. It argues that developments in Germany indicate that it ir possible to achieve appropriate policy change in the country which is often used as the paradigm of entrenched interests without major restructuring of the system. Conversely, recent reforms in the UK(seen by Pierson as the country which has achieved the most rapid changes) appear disproportionate to the scale of the problems faced and may have damaged pensioners' interests. This indicates that the capacity to achieve substantial reform is not necessarily in itself a virtue. The real issue is the quality of reform achieved.
Taylor-Gooby, P. et al. (1999). Risk and the welfare state. British Journal of Sociology [Online] 50:177-194. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.1999.00177.x.
The British welfare state developed as a state-centred response to the problem of handling the risks encountered in a typical life-course. The influential work of Giddens and others implies that the traditional welfare state is under attack from two directions: a changing international politico-economic environment limits the freedom of national governments to pursue independent policies involving relatively high taxation to finance social spending. At the same time, changes in the experience of risk and declining confidence in the expertise of welfare state planners and professionals undermine support for state-centred solutions. This approach fails to acknowledge that available non-state services are often inadequate to meet many everyday life risks and that the authority of private sector advisers, insurers and professionals is also increasingly open to question. This article discusses whether people reject welfare state solutions to problems of risk in the context of research on the perceptions and behaviour of people buying or selling their homes, considering provision for long-term care needs and defrauding social security carried out by the ESRC's Economic Beliefs and Behaviour programme. Individual responses endorse the continued provision of state welfare in order to meet unprovided risks alongside disenchantment with the record of both state and private professionals and planners and awareness that state retrenchment requires greater individual responsibility for meeting one's own needs. The theory of risk society requires development to recognize that citizens are not necessarily alienated from state welfare.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1998). Comments on Amitai Etzioni: Voluntary simplicity: Characterization, select psychological implications, and societal consequences. Journal of Economic Psychology [Online] 19:645-650. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(98)00038-5 .
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1998). 'Things can only get better': expectations and the welfare state. Policy and Politics 26:471-476.
An influential recent study argues that disenchantment with the achievements of the welfare state results from the comparison between modest welfare performance and the improvements in standards of provision in the non-state sector associated with rising living standards (Glennerster and Hills, 1998). This article analyses recent data from the British Social Attitudes survey to show that dissatisfaction in the flagship area of the National Health Service is associated with underprivilege rather than secure and rising standards of living. The implication is that the traditional defence of state welfare, as providing for those who experience needs which they find difficult to satisfy through the market, may still strike a chord with public opinion.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1997). In defence of second-best theory: State, class and capital in social policy. Journal of Social Policy [Online] 26:171-192. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279497004996 .
The sociology of post-fordism has facilitated the development of a new welfarism which suggests that economic globalisation, labour market flexibility, more complex patterns of family life and the dissolution of traditional class structures require a new welfare settlement, Since full. employment, redistribution and expensive universal services are no longer seen as feasible, the new welfare can only justify social spending as investment in human capital and as the enhancement of individual opportunities, Welfare states are all driven in the same direction by the imperatives of international competition. A review of available evidence indicates that the progress of post-fordist social change is partial, Inequalities in life-chances have grown wider, Changes in patterns of employment and new legislation weaken the working class, The ruling class is well aware of its interests, Increases in productivity at a time when investment is not rising, the decline in union membership and militancy and the intensification of work coupled with a policy stance by both main parties that supports lower taxes, a shift in the tax burden downwards and a decline in state intervention all indicate that capital is in the ascendant in the UK, Comparative work shows that the policies pursued under different regimes can make a difference to welfare outcomes despite the increased stringency of competition, The traditional agenda of social policy - class inequality, the strength of capital and the policy programme of the nation-state - merits particular attention in Britain in the 1990s.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1997). European welfare futures: The views of key influentials in six European countries on likely developments in social policy. Social Policy & Administration [Online] 31:1-19. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00034.
The welfare state, having reached maturity in most European countries, faces challenges from economic, social and political developments. Some studies argue that common pressures are likely to evoke similar responses; others suggest that the differences between welfare regimes both permit and require different policies. It is also suggested that the single European market will require convergence in tax regimes, social provision and entitlements to ensure fairer competition and to prevent ''social dumping''. Analysis of data from a survey of politicians, representatives of business, trade unions, civil servants and others shows some convergence in the recognition of problems in welfare policy and in ideas about finance. However, debate about the response to similar issues often differs, according to the detail of institutional structure and the pattern of interests it produces.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1996). The future of health care in six European countries: The views of policy elites. International Journal of Health Services 26:203-219.
A recent study was made of the views of politicians, representatives of trade unions, business organizations, and others likely to be influential in policy making, on the future of health care provision in six European Union (E.U.) countries. This article discusses the findings. While common problems of rising cost resulting from population aging are recognized in ail countries, the way these issues are interpreted and the policies seen as appropriate to tackle them differ. Views are strongly influenced by the organizational structure of existing provision, This supports the ''new institutionalist'' view that policy feedback plays an important role in shaping policy reform. It also indicates that the potential for convergence in E.U. social policy is more limited than suggestions that the single European market will lead to an ''ever closer union'' might imply.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1996). Paying for welfare: The view from Europe. Political Quarterly 67:116-126.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1996). Eurosclerosis in European welfare states: Regime theory and the dynamics of change. Policy and Politics 24:109-123.
The most influential categorisation of capitalist welfare systems - regime theory - suggests that European welfare states will find it difficult to adapt to the changing circumstances of more intense international competition. The problem is seen as particularly severe in the dominant continental corporatist regime. This article uses data from a recent study of the views of politicians, representatives of employers' organisations, unions, the voluntary sector and religious organisations, civil servants and journalists in four European countries to examine this claim. The pattern of opinion fits that predicted by theory, but the potential for change appears to differ in different countries for specific local reasons. Regime theory may be better at understanding stability than in capturing the forces that make for change, and may find it increasingly difficult to do justice to the increasingly uncertain international context of welfare.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1994). Postmodernism and Social-Policy - A Great Leap Backwards . Journal of Social Policy 23:385-404.
Postmodernism claims that the universalist themes of modern society (society-wide political ideologies, the nation-state, the theme of rational planning in government policy, the large-scale public or private sector bureaucracy) are obsolete, to be replaced by a plural interest in diversity and choice. These ideas have strong implications for both the theory of social policy, which typically stresses universal themes of inequality and privilege, and the practice of social policy, which relies on rational analysis to inform society-wide government provision. This article suggests that such an approach ignores the significance of market liberalism and the associated trends to inequality, privatisation, retrenchment and the regulation of the poorest groups. From this perspective, postmodernism functions as an ideological smoke-screen, preventing us from recognising some of the most important trends in modern social policy. It is unfortunate if, at a time when the results of increasing inequality are everywhere apparent, one of the dominant approaches in social science obscures the issue.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1993). The social effects of free market policies - Taylor,I. British Journal of Sociology [Online] 44:147-148. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/591688.
Judge, K., Smith, J. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (1983). Public opinion and the privatisation of welfare: some theoretical implications. Journal of Social Policy 12:469-490.
Book section
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2015). Do Coalition Policies Undermine Solidarity? in: Foster, L. et al. eds. In Defence of Welfare II. Social Policy Association, University of Kent.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Taylor, E. (2015). Benefits and Welfare. in: Curtis, J. ed. British Social Attitudes, 32nd Report. Natcen. Available at: http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-32/welfare.aspx.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2015). The Double Crisis of the Welfare State and What We Can Do About It. in: Wegner, G. ed. The Legitimacy of the Welfare State: Religion, Gender, Neoliberalism. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, pp. 170-194.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2015). Public Policy Futures: A Left Trilemma? in: Green, J., Hay, C. and Taylor-Gooby, P. eds. The British Growth Crisis: The search for a new model. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 126-150. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137441522.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2015). Introduction to The British Growth Crisis. in: Green, J., Hay, C. and Taylor-Gooby, P. eds. The British Growth Crisis: The search for a new model. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 1-14. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137441522.
Stoker, G. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013). How Social Science Can Contribute to Public Policy: the Case for a Design Arm. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. New Paradigms in Public Policy. OUP/British Academy . Available at: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780197264935.do.
Chapter 9
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013). Squaring the Public Policy Circle: Managing a Mismatch Between Demand and Resources. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. New Paradigms in Public Policy. OUP/British Academy , pp. 39-70. Available at: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780197264935.do.
Chapter 3
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013). Introduction: Public Policy at a Cross-Roads. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. New Paradigms in Public Policy. OUP/British Academy , pp. 1-12. Available at: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780197264935.do.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2012). Equality, Rights and Social Justice. in: Alcock, P., Mayo, M. and Wright, S. eds. The Student's Companion to Social Policy. Hoboken: Wiley, pp. 26-32.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Martin, R. (2011). Fairness and Social Provision. in: Clasen, J. ed. Converging Worlds of Welfare? Britain and German Social Policy in the 21st Century. Oxford University Press. Available at: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199584499.do.
Analysis of idea of fairness in European Social Policy
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2011). Choice and Values: Individualised rational action and social goals. in: Alcock, P. and Powell, M. eds. Welfare Theory and Development. Sage. Available at: http://www.uk.sagepub.com/books/Book232750.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2011). Limits to the Regulated Market: the UK Experiment. in: Leisering, L. and Mabbett, D. eds. The New Regulatory State. Palgrave.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2010). What are the Implications of Public Service Reform for Social Inequality? in: Buddery, P. ed. Equality, Cohesion and Public Services. RSA.
A major theme in public service reform is user empowerment through greater opportunities for choice between alternative providers. This raises major challenges for policy-makers since income inequalities have grown rapidly in recent years and better-off people have greater choice across most areas of life. Can reformers achieve more equal outcomes by giving more choice to everyone?
. This chapter considers health and social care, education and early years provision, chosen because they are all high-profile policy areas with substantial reform programmes and because they offer examples of empowerment reforms through choice in more or less competitive markets. Much of the reform programme has had insufficient time to achieve its full impact and available evidence is inconclusive. Despite obvious problems of adverse selection by providers and differences in the capacity of users to make effective choices, the outcomes indicate modest progress in advancing equality. Where empowerment programmes are linked to extra resources targeted on more vulnerable groups or areas in the context of good information, a functioning market and support in decision-making, they appear to have a positive effect. However the achievements of the reform programme are limited. It is hard to make much headway in advancing more equal outcomes in an unequal society unless more money is directed toward poorer groups..
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). The Future of the European Social Model. in: Taylor, R. ed. Social Europe and the Single Market: Where Next? The Smith Institute, pp. 74-81.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009). Attitudes to Fairness and Opportunity. in: Clake, J. ed. Britain in 2010. Economic & Social Research Council. Available at: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/about/CI/CP/britaintoday/index.aspx.
Analysis of attitude data for UK and Germany on these issues. Indicates major differneces in how ideas like opportunity and equity are understood in the two countries.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Martin, R. (2008). Sympathy for the poor, or why New Labour does good by stealth. in: Park, A. et al. eds. British Social Attitudes: the 24th Report. United States: Sage Publications Ltd.
Analyses of British Social Attitudes survey to show how support for redistributive state welfare has fallen.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Mitton, L. (2008). Much Noise, Little Progress: The UK Experience of Privatisation. in: Beland, D. and Gran, B. eds. Public and Private Social Policy: Health and Pension Policies in a New Era. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 147-168.
Since the 1970s, UK governments in common with those of other welfare states have faced a dilemma: pressure on social spending due to population ageing and a changing labor market, and at the same time, strong pressures to contain taxation as international competition intensifies, capital becomes more mobile and electorates resist a greater tax-take. The UK stands out in its use of the private sector and introduction of market forces. Under the Thatcher (1979-1990) and Major (1990-1997) governments, the 'marketization' of welfare involved two strands. One was encouraging individuals to finance their own welfare, for example, by saving for their own pension or taking out private health insurance. The other concerned the promotion of 'quasi-markets' linking 'public' and 'private' in the welfare field (Deakin and Walsh 1996). This involved a new form of welfare state organization: private commercial or voluntary providers alongside public providers. The assumption was that this process would use competitive pressure to promote greater efficiency and responsiveness to the needs of those using the services, most notably in the area of health (Le Grand 1990; Le Grand and Bartlett 1993). Services from social housing to refuse collection, from social care to running prisons were contracted out to private and voluntary sector agencies (Vincent-Jones 2006).When Tony Blair became Labour leader he rejected both right-wing pro-market approaches and traditional left support for public ownership of state services in favour of a Third Way, between the state and the market (Blair 1998). Consequently, the party was renamed New Labour. Since coming to power in 1997 the New Labour governments have not taken apart the reforms of their Conservative predecessors, but have built on them. A 1999 policy document Modernising Government explained their approach:
This Government will adopt a pragmatic approach, using competition to deliver improvements. This means looking hard but not dogmatically at what services government can best provide itself, what should be contracted to the private sector, and what should be done in partnership (Prime Minister and Minister for the Cabinet Office 1999).
Central government typically retains regulatory powers and sets performance targets for public services which are delivered by a range of separate providers, often operating in competition. The assumption is that this will widen choice and drive down costs. In this chapter we examine recent policies in health care and pensions in the UK to see what lessons can be drawn from this experiment in welfare privatization and quasi-markets.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2008). Why don't people trust the NHS when it is getting better? in: Clake, J. ed. Britain in 2009. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council. Available at: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/about/CI/CP/britaintoday/index.aspx.
Kananen, J., Taylor-Gooby, P. and Larsen, T. (2007). Public Attitudes and New Social Risk Reform. in: Armingeon, K. and Bonoli, G. eds. The Politics of Post-Industrial Welfare States:Adapting Post-war Social Policies to New Social Risks. London: Routledge, pp. 83-99.
Theoretical overview and new empirical analysis.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2007). Innovation and the Development of Social Policy in the Contemporary World. in: Zhang, X. ed. Social Policy. Beijing: Beijing Normal University.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2007). Social policy as social investment. in: Midgely, J., Zhang, X. and Xu, Y. eds. Issues of Developmental Social Policy in China. Beijing: Chinese Labour and Social Security Publishing House,.
1. The development of Western welfare states falls into three phases:
The post-war settlement: stable and sustained expansion during the three post-war decades;
Challenges from shifts in labour markets, economic globalisation, population ageing, family and household patterns and other factors. These have called the continued viability of the settlement into question from the later 1970s onwards; and
Recent moves toward a new settlement.
2. The post-war settlement rested on confidence that state welfare, combined with neo-Keynesian economic management supported economic progress and enhanced social stability. New approaches from the 1970s onwards inspired by monetarism saw extensive welfare states as a damaging economic burden, implying that the welfare state should be seen as obsolete. The welfare settlement that is currently emerging argues that a welfare state centred on social investment can again contribute to economic and social objectives in a virtuous spiral of growth and justice.
3. Policy documents from EU and OECD set out a combined economic and social case for the social investment model. These arguments stress the importance of enhancing employment opportunities in a more flexible and dynamic labour market. The view that government should intervene through education and a benefit system that encourages entry into paid work and supports movement between jobs has tended to predominate over endorsement of de-regulation and benefit cut backs as the best route to greater labour market flexibility.
4. The new welfare state settlement has been successfully established, against the loose monetarist argument that welfare spending is simply a burden on economic progress. Different variants are pursued in national contexts that vary according to welfare state traditions and policy-making frameworks. In most cases there is more emphasis on activation through benefit reform and programmes for high-risk groups than on investment in human capital and research and development. The outcomes in terms of equality of outcome and opportunity vary, just as they did in traditional welfare states.
5. Nordic countries, exemplified by Sweden, are most successful in combining growth and social cohesion. The UK is much more successful in the former area than in the latter. The Nordic model is expensive and depends on high taxes. More generally, European welfare state settlements have developed in specific politico-economic contexts which are hard to replicate elsewhere.
6. East Asian societies have generally achieved high levels of investment in human capital and research and development leading to high growth; Europe may have much to learn from East Asia in stimulating such investment, while the European tradition of achieving social cohesion through welfare state spending may be relevant to East Asian futures.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2007). Productivism: what East Asia can teach European social policy. in: Mason, A. ed. Social Policy at a Crossroad: Trends in Advanced Countries and Implications for Korea. Honolulu: East-West Centre.
Analyses of productivist social policies in EU and East Asia
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2007). Public Values: Illiberal Attitudes in a Liberal Country? in: Margo, J. ed. Beyond Liberty: Is the future of liberalism progressive? London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2006). Is the Future American? in: Delorenzi, S. ed. Going Places. London: Polity/Institute for Public Policy Research .
Theoretical and empirical account of dissimilarities between Europe and the US that vitiate the claim the migration will undermine social cohesion in the former.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zinn, J. (2006). The Current Significance of Risk. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zinn, J. O. eds. Risk in Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-19.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2006). Social and Public Policy. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zinn, J. O. eds. Risk in Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 271-287.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2006). Social investment in Europe: bold plans, slow progress and implications for Korea. in: Social Investment East and West. Seoul: Ministry of Health and Welfare.
Recent social policy and labour markets debates in Europe, responding to the difficulties faced by the traditional neo-Keynesian welfare state settlement, stress the value of positive investment alongside de-regulation and greater flexibility as a way of achieving both economic and social goals.
Patterns of policy reform are complex and reflect differing national circumstances. A general move towards deregulation, constraints on entitlement to passive benefits, programmes to enhance employment, particularly among high-risk groups such as single parents and young people, targeted subsidies for low earners and case-management may be identified.
In relation to investment in education, research and development and combined training and benefit programmes to enhance mobility between jobs the picture is less clear. Education standards continue to rise, but research and development spending stagnates and few countries have developed substantial 'flexi-curity' programmes to support job mobility.
The labour market tradition in much of Europe has been one of conflict between labour and employers. As labour grows weaker, new approaches develop. These tend to stress productivity agreements and greater flexibility in work practices within firms and reforms to passive social security systems more broadly, but movement to support the more challenging investment and flexi-curity policies is slow.
In general, social and labour market policies in Europe stress deregulation and negative activation more strongly than social investment and 'flexi-curity'. The countries with high growth and employment achieve that goal by different routes: Sweden has a closely integrated social democratic corporatism with high spending on benefits and training programmes and the UK a more liberal market-oriented system, with lower spending, highly targeted benefits and less mobility support.
Europe has something to learn from Korea in achieving high investment in human capital and R and D, while Korea may have something to learn from Europe in social investment, particularly flexi-curity and equal opportunity policies.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2006). Ch 1: The Politics of Welfare in Europe. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Welfare States under Pressure. Taipei, Taiwan,: Song-Hui, pp. 1-28.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zinn, J. (2006). Risk as an Interdisciplinary Research Area. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zinn, J. O. eds. Risk in Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 20-53. Available at: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/ComparativePolitics/?view=usa&sf=toc&ci=9780199285969.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2006). Greek Welfare Reform in a European Context. in: Petmesidou, M. and Mossialos, E. eds. Social Policy Developments in Greece. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 405-412.
Analysis of Greece as a Mediterranean welfare state.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zinn, J. (2006). The Challenge of (Managing) New Risks. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zinn, J. O. eds. Risk in Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 54-75.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2006). Social Spending and Economic Growth. in: Proceedings of Seoul Ministerial Conference 2006. Seoul: Asia-Pacific Economic Forum.
Theoretical overview.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). Paradigm Shifts, Power Resources and Labour Market Reform. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Ideas and Welfare State Reform in Western Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 12-29.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). UK Pension Reform: A test case for a liberal welfare state? in: Bonoli, G. and Shinkawa, T. eds. Ageing and Pension Reform Around the World: Evidence from Eleven Countries. London: Edward Elgar, pp. 116-136.
Conflict between principles of market liberalism, of social justice and of adequacy in UK pension reform.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). Ideas and Policy Change. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Ideas and Welfare State Reform in Western Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 1-11.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). Social Justice and Welfare Values. in: Paxton, W. and Pearce, N. eds. Social Justice: Building a Fairer Britain. London: Polity/IPPR.
Social attitudes data and social justice
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). The UK: A Test Case for a Liberal Welfare State. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. New Risks New Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 55-82.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Larsen, T. (2004). New Risks at the EU level: A Spill-over from Open Market Policies? in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. New Risks, New Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181-209.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). New Social Risks and Welfare States: New Paradigm and New Politics? in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. New Risks, New Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 209-248.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). The UK-A Test Case of a Liberal Welfare State. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. and Larsen, T. P. eds. New Risks, New Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 55-83.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). New Risks and Social Change. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Risk in Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-29.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). The Practical Politics of Welfare Privatisation. in: Tachibanaki, T. ed. The Role of the Public and Private Sectors in the Social Security System. Kyoto: University of Kyoto.
Analysis of welfare privatisation in UK and other EU countries.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). The Work-Centred Welfare State. in: Park, A. ed. British Social Attitudes: the 21st Report. London: Ashgate Great Britain , pp. 1-22.
Productivism and the work ethic in the British welfare state.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2003). Equality, Rights and Social Justice. in: Alcock, P., Erskine, A. and May, M. eds. The Student's Companion to Social Policy. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 42-48.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Hastie, C. (2003). Support for state spending: Has New Labour got it right? in: Park, A. et al. eds. British Social Attitudes: the 19th Report. London: Sage books.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2002). Support for Government Spending - Has New Labour got it right? in: Parks, A. et al. eds. British Social Attitudes: the 19th Report. London: NCSR/Sage.
Latest attitude data on support for Third Way policies
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2001). Complex Equality – Redistribution, Class and Gender. in: Edwards, R. and Glover, J. eds. Risk and Citizenship: Key Issues in Welfare. London: Routledge, pp. 80-97.
Micro-simulation of gender inequalities in employment and income to demonstrate significance of class as well as gender divides
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2001). Ulike vilkar for ombygging av velferdsstaten. in: Bay, A. -H. ed. Virker Velferds-Staten? Kristiansand: HoyskoleForlaget (Nordic Academic Press), .
Social justice and the welfare state: constraints of social and economic change.
This paper reviews welfare privatisation in Europe with special reference to the UK. The UK is the EU member country in which welfare privatisation has proceeded most rapidly, although pressures on the welfare state are not obviously any more severe here than elsewhere. Privatisation was certainly a central element in Mrs Thatcher's attack on state welfare, yet the policy seems to continue just as vigorously under the centre-left New Labour government. Part of the explanation for interest in privatisation lies in the context of economic globalisation and the technological shifts which reinforce demands for the redirection of state spending to areas where it will enhance economic competitiveness. However, these factors also affect other countries. We need to understand how they are able to exert such a distinctive impact on practical policy-making in the UK. One answer is to do with current cultural shifts, bound up with a transition to a Risk Society. This idea is influential in relation to the Third Way ideology of the current government. However, available evidence from studies of responses to concrete welfare policy changes in areas where privatisation is on the policy agenda indicates that the values of citizens do not endorse privatisation, as the theory implies. An alternative account is to be found in the distinctive UK constitutional and institutional policy-making framework, which allows the executive great autonomy in pursuing its policies, and the lack of a strong trade union influence. The paper contrasts policy-making in the UK with that in the dominant social insurance tradition of Europe, and particularly in France, in which trade unions, pension scheme members', citizens' and other groups have high legitimacy and considerable influence in relation to welfare, and are able to obstruct reform. The paper concludes that to understand why privatisation reforms are more rapid and successful in some countries, it is important to take into account the way policy is made, as well as considering arguments about the economic pressures on the welfare state and shifts in contemporary cultural values. UK experience is unusual, and is strongly influenced by the peculiarities of the national policy-making system. Elsewhere in the EU, private pensions and welfare provision will be much slower in emerging, and will require a substantial involvement from government in order to facilitate their development.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2001). Welfare Reform in the UK. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Welfare States under pressure. London: Sage, pp. 147-170. Available at: http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/jsp/id/Welfare_States_under_Pressure/9780761971993.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Clasen, J. (2001). Unemployment and Unemployment Policies in the UK. in: Anderson, J. ed. Unemployment in Europe. Bristol: Policy Press.
Policy analysis in EU context
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2001). Polity, Policy-Making and Welfare Futures. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Welfare States under pressure. London: Sage, pp. 171-189. Available at: http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/jsp/id/Welfare_States_under_Pressure/9780761971993.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2000). Risk and welfare. in: Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. Risk Trust and Welfare. Palgrave, pp. 1-20. Available at: http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/jsp/id/Risk_Trust_and_Welfare/9780333764930.
Edited book
Taylor-Gooby, P., Green, J. and Hay, C. eds. (2015). Britain’s Growth Crisis: The Search for a New Model. [Online]. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Available at: http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/the-british-growth-crisis-jeremy-green/?K=9781137441515.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
Britain remains mired in the most severe and prolonged economic crisis that it has faced since the 1930s. The financial crash of 2007 brought British growth to a sharp halt, while the subsequent double-dip recession has eaten away at living standards and dampened future prospects. In such a context the question of growth has acquired a renewed urgency, taking centre stage within British politics. Britain's old growth model, based on asset price inflation in the housing market and cheap consumer credit, is now defunct. But, as yet, no credible alternative has been proposed. The old growth model is dying but a new one has yet to be born. The crisis has raised many questions about the future of British growth. Is the attempt to reduce deficits and lower debt the right strategy to foster long-term recovery? Can a new approach deliver growth that is socially and environmentally sustainable? And what can be done to ensure the benefits of growth are shared more evenly in the future? This important collection of essays by leading commentators seeks to provide some much-needed answers.
Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. (2013). New Paradigms in Public Policy. [Online]. Oxford: British Academy , Oxford University Press. Available at: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780197264935.do.
Abstract | View in KAR | View Full Text
Covers issues of central policy importance
Offers a new approach to relationship between policy and scientific knowledge
This book reviews some of the most challenging developments in British society as they are understood by policy-makers and by academics. The key point is that academic debates identify a range of ways in which issues can be understood and tackled, but policy is typically based on a narrow subset of possible approaches. This is illustrated by discussion of climate change, demographic shifts, the response to greater ethnic and religious diversity, the debate about community and local area politics, democratisation, nudge, the international financial crisis, and the growth of popular disillusion with politics and politicians. These areas range across economic, social and political issues.
This book will contribute to our understanding of governance and particularly of how the ideas that lead the policy agenda emerge and are reinforced. It will also be valuable in academic study of policy debate and help develop understanding of the policy issues which it examines. It is written by leading academics from the fields under discussion and draws on the most recent research.
Readership: The 'Policy Community': academics, journalists, politicians, senior civil servants, lobby groups, think-tanks and private agencies interested in public policy. Also academics and higher-level students in political science, public administration, political sociology, social and public policy.
Svallfors, S. and Taylor-Gooby, P. eds. (2007). The End of the Welfare State?: Responses to State Retrenchment. [Online]. Taylor & Francis Ltd. Available at: http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/books/details/9780415463263/.
Throughout the world, politicians from all the main parties are cutting back on state welfare provision, encouraging people to use the private sector instead and developing increasingly stringent techniques for the surveillance of the poor. Almost all experts agree that we are likely to see further constraints on state welfare in the 21st Century.
Gathering together the findings from up-to-date attitude surveys in Europe East and West, the US and Australasia, this revealing book shows that, contrary to the claims of many experts and policy-makers, the welfare state is still highly popular with the citizens of most countries. This evidence will add to controversy in an area of fundamental importance to public policy and to current social science debate.
Zinn, J.O. and Taylor-Gooby, P. eds. (2006). Learning about Risk. [Online]. Web: Forum Qualitative Research. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-e/inhalt1-06-e.htm.
The special issue "Learning about Risk" draws on the launch conference of the ESRC "Social Contexts and Responses to Risk" network (SCARR) held at 28th 29th January 2005 in Canterbury. The SCARR network is an interdisciplinary network on risk which examines perceptions of and responses to risk in a range of areas, including sexual behaviour and partnering choices, the mass media, faith and ethnicity, pensions and financial planning, industrial pollution, crime, transport, energy policy and environmental hazards. The network's launch conference reflected the interdisciplinary character of risk research including a range of different methods and approaches to risk, directed at diverse objects of interest. The idea of the special issue is to link together this diversity and interdisciplinarity in risk research, and to encourage perspectives that look beyond the boundaries of single disciplines and methodological approaches. The papers in this publication demonstrate the value of insights from different disciplinary backgrounds in this area and point to the opportunities and challenges in the work that remains to be done in drawing these several perspectives more closely together.
Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. (2006). Welfare States under Pressure. Taipei, Taiwan,: Song-Hui.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zinn, J.O. eds. (2006). Risk in Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. (2005). Ideas and Welfare State Reform in Western Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. (2004). Making a European Welfare State? Convergences and Conflicts over European Social Policy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
1. Introduction: Open markets versus Welfare Citizenship - Conflicting Approaches to Policy Convergence in Europe: Peter Taylor-Gooby.
2. Pressures on State Welfare in Post-industrial Societies: Is More or Less Better?: Mads Meier Jaeger and Jon Kvist.
3. When Is A Change Big Enough To Be A System Shift? Small SystemShifting Changes in German and Finnish Pension Policies: Karl Hinrichs and Olli Kangas.
4. Organisational Restructuring in European Health Systems: The Role of Primary Care: Ana Rico, Richard B. Saltman and Wienke B.W. Boerma.
5. The Uncertain Convergence of Disability Policies in Western Europe: Bjrn Hvinden.
6. Adaptation to Labour Market Change in France and the UK: Convergent or Parallel Tracks?: Anne Daguerre and Peter Taylor-Gooby.
7. Mending Nets in the South: Anti-Poverty Policies in Greece, Italy, Portugal And Spain: Manos Matsaganis, Maurizio Ferrera, Luis Capucha and Luis Moreno.
8. The Trajectory of Welfare State Development: The Cases of Post-Communist Bulgaria and Romania: Dimitri A. Sotiropoulos, Ileana Neamtu and Maya Stoyanova.
9. Convergence in the Social Welfare Systems in Europe: From Goal to Reality: Denis Bouget.
Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. (2001). Welfare States under Pressure. London and California: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Exerpt from the Financial Times Comment & Analysis: Europe takes on reform of the welfare state: A new study indicates that while the UK has transformed its social policies, the rest of Europe has been far from idle - '[A] stimulating new book on European welfare states [Welfare States under Pressure] suggests that the view of Britain as the only great welfare state reformer is overstated. And it adds that the game across Europe is about to change!. This new study argues that, particularly in the late 1990s, there has been more reform in the rest of Europe than is appreciated in the UK. And that Europe as a whole is on the cusp of much greater changes!. Certainly in France and possibly in Germany, the study judges, the traditional power balance between government, employers, unions and welfare providers has shifted such that government may be able to impose much more drastic measures...In the UK, by contrast, the impact of EU institutions may in some areas mean a degree of levelling up - as in healthcare. The most intriguing question is how far reformed welfare states will retain the social cohesion they are designed to produce.So far, even in the UK, they have proved remarkably resilient - adapting to changing needs rather than being "rolled back". This study's verdict on the issue is "don't know". But so much change is on the way, it says, that "the past is unlikely to be a good guide to the future"' - Nicholas Timmins, The Financial Times Welfare States under Pressure provides a timely and comprehensive review of welfare policy-making in Europe. The text compares the different ways in which welfare states have responded to similar pressures over recent years, and considers how welfare is likely to develop in the future. This work: * provides up to date accounts of welfare development in Finland, Sweden, France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain and the United Kingdom. * explores how similar pressures can lead to different responses due to different policy-making mechanisms in each of the seven different countries * contains chapters written by leading national experts * written accessibly, and tightly edited, with each chapter following the same conceptual structure. This volume takes a fresh approach in its analysis of the future of the welfare state in Europe.It suggests that opportunities for radical change in welfare systems are now opening up, and that there will be little continuity between the future and the past/present of the welfare system in Europe. Welfare States under Pressure is invaluable to undergraduate students in social policy, European studies and politics, and will also be of great use to other social science students interested in Europe and its future development.
Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. (2000). Risk Trust and Welfare. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Theoretical discussion and empirical evidence on the way people think about, and cope with, the risks and uncertainties of late 1990s life are collected here. The national surveys cover areas ranging from lone parenthood to medicine, from house purchase to long term care, from personal finance to the welfare state. People's confidence in their capacity to cope with uncertainty is closely related to social class, gender and access to support networks. Policies that assume that people are self interested rational actors are likely to produce unsatisfactory results and to damage the essential social capital of trust.
Taylor-Gooby, P. ed. (1998). Choice and Public Policy: The Limits to Welfare Markets. [Online]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan . Available at: http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=251924.
Public policies increasingly emphasize active consumerism, entrepreneurship on the part of service providers and professionals, privatization, and an expanded role for markets. This text draws on research by economists, psychologists, sociologists and public policy experts. The research demonstrates that the traditional rational choice model of economic behaviour is unsatisfactory in providing accounts of the way people choose in relation to work, saving, spending, investment and social welfare. It also shows that the public policies of active consumerism, public sector entrepreneurship, and privatization based on this approach may be flawed.
George, V. and Taylor-Gooby, P. eds. (1996). European Welfare Policy: Squaring the Welfare Circle. St. Martin's Press .
This broad and accessible text examines one of the most crucial issues facing western governments today: how to raise sufficient funds to meet the rising aspirations of their electorate for more and better welfare services. Looking at seven European countries representing different policy traditions, government ideologies and levels of economic affluence, it discusses health, social security, housing, personal social services and education policies against a background of economic, demographic and familial change.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Lawson, R. eds. (1993). Markets and Managers: New Issues in the Delivery of Welfare. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Over the past decade, the British welfare state has undergone the most fundamental reforms since World War II. Much discussion of current policy focuses on the global issues of cuts, privatization and the scope of the state sector. This book argues that the organizational reforms of the 1990s are also of far-reaching significance and will play a major role in setting the agenda for welfare policy into the next century. The new welfare settlement emphasizes decentralization, the use of markets, an autonomous managerialism, a stronger voice for consumers and a greater role for the private sector. Reformers claim that the changes allow a more efficient, flexible and responsive welfare system, while critics argue that they will lead to greater inequality and to discrimination against the most vulnerable groups of service users. This book differs from other recent publications in its emphasis on the changes in the organization and delivery of services. It examines the emergence of the new managerial ideology in central and local government, considers the similarities and differences between the UK and other European countries and reviews policy change across the range of public services. The concluding chapter evaluates competing explanations of why the transformation has occurred and discusses future developments. The book provides a practical discussion of the issues, and should be of value to a wide range of students and welfare practitioners.
back to top
Research Interests
Research interests
My main interests are in current developments in the welfare state: the cuts and welfare state restructuring, the social divisions association with inequality and the struggles over multiculturalism.
I have further interests in cross-disciplinary work on risk, comparative cross-national work on European social policy and work on theoretical developments in social policy. I believe that careful,
theoretically-founded qualitative and quantitative empirical research is essential to make progress in all these areas. I am greatly concerned about the damage the current austerity programme does
to the welfare state.
Current projects
- 2015-18 NORFACE Our Children's Europe, Norface Euro 1.5m, 496,000 to Kent
- 2013-17 INSPIRES (Resilience, unemployment and young people), EU Euro 220,000
- 2012-16 ‘Public good and private schooling’, Llakes Centre, Institute of Education, ESRC, £26,500
Recent projects
- 2012 'Identity and economic inequality’, GO-Science, Foresight Review, £6,000
- 2012 ‘Risk Perception and Behaviour: what we know and what we need to know’, ESRC, £15,000 (with Mario Weick and Dominic Abrams)
- 2011-13 ‘Social Cohesion at the Cross-Roads’ Leverhulme Trust Major Fellowship, £40,826
- 2011-12 ‘Nudge and Public Policy’, Chair, British Academy Public Policy Research Programme.
Past projects
- 2009-12 ‘New Paradigms in Public Policy’, Chair of British Academy Public Policy Research programme, £40,000
- 2009-10 ‘Social Inequality: the way forward’, Public Services Trust 2020 programme, £5,000
- 2009 ‘The Psychology of Behaviour’, Lloyds, £4,000
- 2009-10 ‘Trust and Confidence in Pensions’, DWP, £15,280 (with Professor Vickerstaff and Drs Loretto and Harrison).
- 2008-09 ‘Managing Risks in a Changing Society: Director’s Fellowship’, ESRC, £60,703
- 2006-08 ‘Institutional Trust and Health Care Reform’, ESRC, £97,588.
- 2006-09 ‘Sustainable Welfare and Sustainable Growth’, Anglo-German Foundation, £75,000.
- 2006-07 ‘Analysis in External Aid – Consultancy’, Research and Development contract 88-092637, EC.
- 2006-07 ‘Testing the Risk Society Hypothesis’ ESRC, £67,347 (with Dr Cebulla, Natcen)
- 2005 East Asian Social Policy Conference, Daiwa Foundation and Social Policy Association, £2,250.
- 2004 Advice on preparation for the next RAE, University of Stirling, £500.
- 2003-08 'Social Contexts and Responses to Risk', ESRC Research Programme, £2,714,076.
- 2003-4 ‘Trust in Pensions’, The Actuarial Profession, £15,000.
- 2003 'Resourcing the Welfare State', Consultancy to develop a proposal for an ESRC programme, £1,550.
- 2003 Advice on preparation for the next RAE, University of Bath, £500.
- 2002 Advice on preparation for the next RAE, University of Bangor, £500.
- 2002-04 'Active Citizenship', Nordic Research Council: UK consultant, 2,000 Euros.
- 2001-04 ‘Welfare Reform and the Management of Societal Change’, Coordination and UK research, EC FPV, 749,855 Euros.
- 2001-02 ‘The Assessment of Asymmetric Threat’, Frank Furedi and Peter Taylor-Gooby, Qinetiq, £15,348.
- 2001-03 Evaluation of ESRC Risk and Human Behaviour Research Programme, ESRC, £20,000.
- 2001-03 ‘Public Policy: Knowledge, Understanding and Attitudes’, ESRC, £74,454.
- 1999-00 ‘Welfare States under Pressure’, ESRC, £18,010.
- 1998 ‘Economic Beliefs and Behaviour: Programme Director’, ESRC, £13,272.
- 1996-98 ‘Public or Private? Dental Practitioners’ Beliefs, Values and Practice’, Professors Calnan and Taylor-Gooby and Dr Manley, NHS Executive South Thames, £78,292.
- 1994-98 ‘Economic Beliefs and Behaviour: Programme Director’, ESRC, £265,410.
- 1994-96 ‘Squaring the Welfare Circle in Denmark’, Commission of the European Communities, DG V, 8,040 ECU.
- 1994-96 ‘Squaring the Welfare Circle in the Netherlands’, COSZ, agency of the Dutch Ministry of Welfare, £6,000.
- 1993-96 ‘Squaring the Welfare Circle: the Political Limits to Social Policy Growth in Europe’, ESRC, £90,660.
- 1993-94 ‘Squaring the Welfare Circle in Germany’, Anglo German Foundation, £3,000.
- 1994 ‘Attitudes to Welfare - Issues of Interest to DSS’, Department of Social Security, £3,000.
- 1993 ‘Squaring the Welfare Circle in Europe’. University of Kent, £2,808.
- 1993 ‘Charities in Recession’, Charities Aid Foundation, £500.
- 1992 ‘Attitudes to Charitable Giving’, Charities Aid Foundation, £2,663.
- 1990 ‘Social Change and Social Welfare’, Social Science Research Fellowship, Nuffield Foundation, £4,323.
- 1989-91 ‘Dependency Culture: the Image and Reality of the Claiming Experience’, ESRC, £44,503.
- 1989-90 UK consultant to: ‘Structural Economic Change East and West - Adapting to Changing Work and Income Opportunities’, Professor Gottlieb, Free University of Berlin, Daimler-Benz Foundation.
- 1989-90 ‘Economic Change, Urban Revival and Social Polarisation: London Compared to New York’, Ian Gordon, University of Reading, Mike Harloe, University of Essex and Peter Taylor-Gooby. ESRC, £25,000.
- 1988-89 Consultant to DHSS project on ‘Consumer Perceptions of the Transition to Income Support’.
- 1987-88 ‘The Statutory Sick Pay Scheme and Occupational Welfare’, Nuffield Foundation, £19,737.
- 1986-87 ‘Politician's Opinions, Party and Public Opinion’, Monument Trust, £2,430.
- 1986-on Consultant on welfare to the annual British Social Attitudes surveys and the International Social Survey. ESRC research intern to 1987 survey. Commissioned to write chapters for annual reports and books.
- 1986 ‘The Provision of Occupational Welfare’, Nuffield Foundation, £2,400.
- 1985-87 ‘A Study of Politicians' Attitudes to Welfare’, ESRC, £30,080.
- 1985-87 ‘Restructuring in a Service Economy: the case of Thanet’ (Ian Gordon, Chris Pickvance, Nick Buck and Peter Taylor-Gooby), ESRC, £55,370 plus linked studentship.
- 1985-87 Consultant on attitude research to the ‘Anglo-Hungarian Study of Attitudes to Welfare Policy’, directed by B.Deacon of Plymouth Polytechnic, ESRC, £29,528.
- 1985 Consultant on ‘Consumption’ to BBC Television's Domesday Disc project.
- 1983-85 ‘A Study of Ambivalence in Public Opinion about State Welfare’, ESRC, £68,800 plus linked studentship.
- 1983 Consultant: questionnaire design LWTV Breadline Britain series.
- 1980-82 ‘A Study of Opinions on the Role of the State in Welfare’, ESRC, £20,748 plus linked studentship
Supervision
I welcome research students in social policy with special interests in current developments in the welfare state: the cuts and welfare state restructuring, the social divisions associated with inequality
and the struggles over multiculturalism. I have further interests in cross-cutting interdisciplinary work on risk and in comparative and European social policy. If you have a proposal in these areas
and want to study at the University of Kent, please email me to discuss further.
Teaching
Current
My teaching is mainly supervision of research students (see my research tab). Two of my ex-research students hold chairs at Russell Group universities and one at a leading European university. The
thesis titles of recent successful students give an idea of the range of areas of interest:
- The Pressures for and Limits to Pension Reform in Greece and Turkey
- Social Security, Social Control and the Tribunal Process
- The Ideology of Entitlement - Public Opinion, Social Division and Social Security
- Women in the Labour Market and the Family: Policies in Greece and Germany
- The Politics of Pension and Health Care Reform in Korea, 1975-2002.
Activity
Honours and awards
- OBE, Services to Social Science, July 2012.
- AcSS Annual Lecture ‘The State of Social Science: only itself to blame’, London, July 5 2012.
- Keynote, Council of Europe Forum for the Future of Democracy 14 October 2011, Cyprus.
- Chair, British Academy New Paradigms in Public Policy programme, 2010-11.
- Invited Guest, Spending Review meeting on Social Security with Chief Secretary to the Treasury, July 19, 2010.
- Elected Fellow of British Academy, 2009.
- Invited Special Guest Korean Institute of Health and Social Administration International Symposium, May 27-8, 2009.
- Invited Guest, Roundtable discussion of ‘Where now for the progressive consensus?’ with Prime Minister and Ed Miliband MP, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, No 10 Downing Street, March 17, 2009
- Distinguished Visitor, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, sponsored by the Central Policy Unit as a Special Advisor, 2008-9
- Elected President, Sociology and Social Policy Section, British Association for the Advancement of Science, 2005-6.
- Elected Fellow, Royal Society of Arts, 2005.
- Elected Founding Academician ALSiSS, 2001.
Professional activities
- Chair REF Social Work and Social Policy and Administration panel 2011-15.
- Invited Chair, Inside Government Westminster Conference on Welfare Reform to be addressed by the Chief Executives of the DWP Universal Credit Programme, Shelter, Job Centre Plus, the National Children’s Bureau, The Centre for Welfare Reform, and others, 7 June 2011.
- Chair BA Nudge Programme 2011-12
- Social Science Judge Fulbright Young Researcher Award, 2011.
- Member Government Office for Science Review of DWP 2011
- Board member, Blackett Review of High Impact Low Probability risks, chaired by Sir John Beddington for the Cabinet Office, September-December 2010.
- Appointed to BA Public Policy Fellows Group, June 2010 onwards.
- Guest lecturer at BA Researching Government course, Sunningdale, March 2010.
- Appointed to RSA 2020 Public Services Programme Management Group 2010-11.
- Invited Assessor Norwegian Research Council and Hong Kong Research Council 2010 onwards.
- Appointed to ESRC College of Assessors 2010.
- Appointed to ESRC Postgraduate Training Scheme Assessment College 2010.
- Appointed to HEFCE REF Impact Pilot Evaluation Panel, 2010.
- President of Finland’s Lecture (Mauno Koivosto), Universities of Turku, 23 September 2009.
Consultancy
- Academic Consultant, National School for Social Care Research, National Institute for Health Research 2008-9.
- Consultant on Attitudes to Social Welfare and invited annual chapter author, British Social Attitudes Survey, 1983 onwards.
- External Member, TQA Committee and Academic Planning and Resources Committee, Department of Social Policy, LSE, 2002-4.
Editorial
Seventy-three articles in non-refereed journals including Guardian Newspaper, Times Higher Educational Supplement, The Listener, New Society, New Statesman and Society, Social Policy Association Newsletter, Social Work Today, Community Care, Poverty, New Socialist, New Manchester Review, Municipal Journal, Rehabilitation Network and Kent Bulletin.
- Editor special issue of Social Policy and Administration on 'Resilience and Convergence' also to be published as a Macmillan book, 2003-04.
- Editor of the series: Globalisation and Welfare, Edward Elgar publishers 1999-2005.
- Invited Editor for the first issue of the Social Policy Association Journal, Social Policy and Society, April, 2001.
- Editorial Board member, Social Politics, 1996 on
- Editorial Board member, Journal of East Asian Social Policy, 2005 on.
- Editorial Board member, Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 2007 on.
- Editorial Board member Social Policy and Administration, 2000-2005.
- Editorial Board member Comparative Studies in Political Economy and Social Policy, University of Toronto Press, 1994-2005.
- Editorial Board member Voluntas: an International Journal of Voluntary and Non-Profit Organisations. 1988 -1992.
- Editorial Board member Journal of Social Policy, 1983-86.
- Editorial Board member Critical Social Policy 1980-85.
External assessor
- External Assessor, Chair in Sociology, University of Sussex, December, 1995.
- Assessor, Recognition of Distinction in Social Studies, University of Oxford, February 2000.
- External Assessor, Readership in Social Policy, Warwick University, November 1995.
Referee
- Referee for: Benefits, British Journal of Sociology, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Canadian Journal of Sociology, Comparative Political Studies, Environment and Planning, European Journal of Risk Research,
Journal of Social Policy, European Societies, European Sociological Review, Fiscal Studies, Government and Opposition, Journal of Public Policy, Journal of Risk Research, Journal of Social
Policy, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Political Quarterly, Political Studies, Public Administration, Scandinavian Political Studies, Social and Economic Administration, Social Policy
and Society, Social Research Methodology, Sociological Research Online, Theory and Practice, Sociology, Sociology of Health and Illness, Sociological Review.
Media
Professor Peter Taylor-Gooby
What's the point of the social sciences?
Professor Peter Taylor-Gooby debates charities on Sky
OU Lecture - Why are we so bad at defending the welfare state?