The move towards workfare and active labour-market policies is often alleged to be closely associated with the decentralisation and localisation of welfare delivery and agencies. In the United Kingdom, the New Deal for the young unemployed was designed to introduce local flexibility and discretion in delivery to mainstream labour-market policy. We use case studies of five local areas to examine the extent to which the programme has actually been decentralised and benefited from ‘local flexibility’. We categorise the arguments for policy decentralisation under four main rationales—improved policy learning and adaptation, stronger partnership building, more innovation, and greater resource targeting—and examine the achievements and limitations of the programme under each. We argue that, although the contractualism of the New Deal has allowed a certain degree of local discretion and cooperation in delivery, there have been strong standardised bureaucratic and financial constraints on the real extent of territorial flexibility. Although the limited decentralisation achieved has yielded some of the predicted benefits, the centralised nature of labour-market policy in the United Kingdom is proving resistant to change and, paradoxically, the programme is producing uneven results across the country. To conclude, we consider whether more local flexibility would be sufficient to improve the performance of the programme.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonJ, 1999, “The New Deal for young unemployed people: a summary of progress”, Employment Service Research and Development Report ESR13, Employment Service, Moorfoot, Sheffield
2.
Bank of Scotland and Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, 2000, “The financial service sector partnership for New Deal, evaluation report”, Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, Apex House, 99 Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh EH12 5HD
3.
BennettRPayneD, 2000Local and Regional Economic Development: Renegotiating Power under Labour (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants)
BrysonAKnightGWhiteM, 2000, “New Deal for Young People: national survey of participants: stage 1”, Employment Service Research and Development Report ESR44, Employment Service, Moorfoot, Sheffield
9.
CalmforsL, 1995, “What can we expect from active labour market policy?”Applied Economics Quarterly4311–30
10.
CampbellMSandersonIWaltonF, 1998, “Local responses to long term unemployment”, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Homestead, 40 Water End, York YO30 6WP
11.
CampbellMFoySHutchinsonJ, 1999, “Welfare to work: Lessons from the United Kingdom”, in The Local Dimension of Welfare to Work: An International Survey (OECD, Paris) pp 197–222
12.
CampbellM, 2000, “Reconnecting the long term unemployed to labour market opportunity: The case for a local active labour market policy”Regional Studies34655–668
13.
ChattertonPBradleyD, 2000, “Bringing Britain together? The limitations of area-based regeneration policies in addressing deprivation”Local Economy1598–111
14.
DaviesVIrvingP, 2000, “NDYP: intensive gateway trailblazers”, Employment Service Research and Development Report ESR50, Employment Service, Moorfoot, Sheffield
15.
DfEE, 1998, “Design of the New Deal for 18–24 year olds”, Department for Education and Employment, Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BT
16.
DolowitzD, 1998Learning from America, Policy Transfer and the Development of the British Workfare State (Sussex Academic Press, Brighton)
17.
Education and Employment Committee, 1997, “The New Deal”, 2nd report, volumes 1 and 2, House of Commons papers—session 1997–98, 263-II and 263–11 (The Stationery Office, London)
18.
Education and Employment Committee, 2000, “New Deal for Young People: two years on”, 8th report, House of Commons papers—session 1999–00, 510 (The Stationery Office, London)
19.
EvansCNathanMSimmondsD, 1999, “Employability through work”, CLES research paper number 2, Centre for Local Economic Strategies, Express networks, 1 George Leigh Street, Manchester M4 5DL
20.
FinnD, 2000, “Welfare to work: The local dimension”Journal of European Social Policy1043–57
21.
FoleyPMartinS, 2000, “A New Deal for the community? Public participation in the regeneration and local service delivery”Policy and Politics34479–492
22.
GardinLLavilleJ-L, 2000, “Les initiatives locales en Europe”Travail et Emploi8153–66
23.
GoughIBradshawJDitchJEardleyTWhitefordP, 1997, “Social assistance in OECD countries”Journal of European Social Policy717–43
24.
GreenAOwenP, 1998Where are the Jobless? (Policy Press, Bristol)
25.
HaughtonGPeckJTickellAJonesMLittlewoodSWhileA, 2000, “Prototype employment zones: a qualitative and contextual evaluation”, research report 232, Department for Education and Employment, Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BT
26.
HoogveltAFranceA, 2000, “New Deal: The experience and views of clients in one Pathfinder city (Sheffield)”Local Economy15112–127
27.
JonesM, 1999New Institutional Spaces: TECs and the Remaking of Economic Governance (Jessica Kingsley, London)
28.
JonesMGrayA, 2001, “Social capital, or local workfarism? Reflections on employment zones”Local Economy16178–186
29.
LewisJWalkerR, 2000, “What works in the delivery of welfare to work?”, in Evaluating Welfare to Work: Papers from the joint Department of Social Security and National Centre for Social Research Seminary, June 16th 1999 In-house report no. 67, Eds ChittyCElamG; copy available from P Noakes, Social Research Division, Department for Work and Pensions, 4th Floor, Adelphi, 1–11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT, http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/ih2000.html
30.
LodemelI, 2001, “Discussion: Workfare in the welfare state”, in ‘An Offer You Can't Refuse’ Workfare in International Perspective Eds LodemelITrickeyH (Policy Press, Bristol) pp 295–343
31.
LodemelITrickeyH (Eds), 2001‘An Offer You Can't Refuse’ Workfare in International Perspective (Policy Press, Bristol)
32.
MartinRNativelCSunleyP, forthcoming, “The local impact of the New Deal: Does geography make a difference?”, in Local Labour Markets: Problems, Processes, Policies Eds MartinRMorrisonP (The Stationery Office, London)
33.
MillarJ, 2000, “Keeping track of welfare reform: the New Deal programmes”, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Homestead, 40 Water End, York YO30 6WP
34.
MohanJ, 2000, “New Labour, new localism?”Renewal856–62
35.
MulganR, 2000, “Accountability: An ever-expanding concept?”Public Administration78555–573
36.
NathanM, 2000In Search of Work? Employment Strategies for a Risky WorldThe Industrial Society, Robert Hyde House, 48 Bryanston Square, London W1H 7LN
37.
NativelC, 2001Economic Transition, Unemployment and Active Labour Market Policy: Lessons and Perspectives from the East German Bundesländer (Birmingham University Press, Birmingham)
38.
OECD, 1998Local Management for More Effective Employment Policies (OECD, Paris)
39.
OECD, 1999The Local Dimension of Welfare to Work: An International Survey (OECD, Paris)
40.
PeckJ, 1999, “New labourers? Making a New Deal for the ‘workless class’”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy17345–372
41.
PeckJ, 2001Workfare States (Guilford Press, New York)
42.
RamiaGCarneyI, 2001, “Contractualism, managerialism and welfare: The Australian experiment with a marketised employment services network”Policy and Politics2959–80
43.
RobinsonP, 1998, “Active labour-market policies: A Case of evidence based policy-making?”Oxford Review of Economic Policy1613–26
44.
RodgerJBurnistonSLawlessM, 2000, “New Deal for Young People: delivery and performance in private sector lead areas”, Employment Service Research and Development Report ESR53, Employment Service, Moorfoot, Sheffield
45.
SargeantGWhiteleyP, 2000Reforming the New Deal (Industrial Society, London)
46.
SeuretF, 2001, “Emplois-jeunes: Cinq ans, et après?” [Five years and then what?]Alternatives Économiques19046–51
47.
SmithG, 1999, “Area-based initiatives: the rationale and options for area targeting”, CASE paper 25, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/case/publications/casepapers.asp
48.
Social Exclusion Unit, 1998, “Bringing Britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal”, Cm 4045 (The Stationery Office, London)
49.
SmileyPMartinRNativelC, 2001, “Mapping the New Deal: The local disparities in the performance of welfare-to-work”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers26484–512
50.
Tavistock Institute, 1999, “A review of thirty New Deal partnerships”, Employment Service Research and Development Report ESR32, Employment Services, Moorfoot, Sheffield
51.
TheodoreNPeckJ, 1999, “Welfare-to-work: National problems, local solutions?”Critical Social Policy19485–510
52.
Training Standards Council, 2000, “New Deal 18–24: inspection report, November 1999”, Birmingham Unit of Delivery; report available from Adult Learning Inspectorate, Spring Place, Coventry Business Park, Herald Avenue, Coventry CVS 6UD
53.
TrickeyHWalkerR, 2001, “Steps to compulsion within British labour market policies”, in “An Offer You Can't Refuse” Workfare in International Perspective Eds LodemelITrickeyH (Policy Press, Bristol) pp 181–214
54.
WalshKAtkinsonJBarryJ, 1999, “The New Deal gateway: a labour market assessment”, Employment Services Research and Development Report ESR24, Employment Service, Moorfoot, Sheffield
55.
WhiteM, 2000, “New Deal for Young People: Towards an ethical employment policy?”Policy Studies21285–299
