This article uses the concepts of ‘soft spaces’ and ‘soft outcomes’ previously developed in relation to the study of local economic development and planning and applies them to the related, but not identical, field of localised welfare-to-work initiatives. The specific example of the City Strategy initiative in Great Britain provides evidence of these concepts in action. This initiative foregrounded the importance of local partnership working whereby various stakeholders joined together to operate in soft space to achieve commonly agreed goals. The article considers how local partnerships operate in soft space and the appropriate measures of success to be used when assessing the efficacy of their interventions. It is argued that both ‘soft outcomes’ and ‘hard outcomes’ can be used to understand success; but that assessment of soft spaces only in terms of ‘hard outcomes’ is far from comprehensive.
AdamDGreenA (2012) Local needs and national eligibility rules: The City Strategy experience of localisation. Local Economy27: 502–513.
2.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG (2009) Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A41: 617–633.
3.
AllmendingerPHaughtonGKnielingJ (2015) Soft spaces, planning and emerging practices of territorial governance. In: AllmendingerPHaughtonGKnielingJ (eds) Soft Spaces in Europe. Regions and Cities, London: Routledge, pp. 25–44.
4.
Atkinson I (2010) Governance structures and the devolved delivery of employment outcomes. DWP Research Report 678. Leeds: CDS.
5.
Beveridge W (1942) Social Insurance and Allied Services. Cm 6404. London: HM Stationery Office.
6.
CrightonMTurokILeleuxC (2009) Tensions in localising welfare to work to Britain's cities. Local Economy24: 46–67.
7.
DaviesJS (2005) Local governance and the dialectics of hierarchy, market and network. Policy Studies26: 311–335.
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2006) A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work, Department for Work and Pensions, London: The Stationery Office.
DewsonSEcclesJTackeyNJ (2000) Guide to Measuring Soft Outcomes and Distance Travelled, Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
13.
Fujiwara D (2010) The Department for Work and Pensions Social Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework: Methodologies for estimating and incorporating the wider social and economic impacts of work in cost-benefit analysis of employment programmes, DWP Working Paper 86.
14.
Green AE, Adam D and Hasluck C (2010) Evaluation of phase 1 city strategy. DWP Research Report 639. Leeds: CDS.
15.
Green AE and Adam D (2011) City strategy: Final evaluation. DWP Research Report 783. Leeds: CDS.
16.
GreenAEOrtonM (2010) Policy innovation in a fragmented and complex multilevel governance context: worklessness and the city strategy in Great Britain. Regional Studies46: 153–164.
17.
Greenberg D, Knight D, Speckesser S, et al. (2011) Improving DWP assessment of the relative costs and benefits of employment programmes. DWP Working Paper No. 100.
18.
Hall Aitken (2011) Measuring Soft Outcomes – A Basic Guide, Glasgow: Hall Aitken.
19.
HaughtonGAllmendingerPOosterlynckS (2013) Spaces of neoliberal experimentation: Soft spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality. Environment and Planning A45: 217–234.
20.
HaughtonGAllmendingerP (2008) The soft spaces of local economic development. Local Economy23: 138–148.
21.
HM Treasury (2010) Spending Review 2010. Cm 7942, HM Treasury. London: The Stationery Office.
22.
HM Treasury (2013) Spending Round 2013 Cm 8639, HM Treasury. London: The Stationery Office.
23.
HoodCDixonR (2015) A Government that Worked Better and Cost Less?: Evaluating Three Decades of Reform and Change in UK Central Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
Houghton S, Dove C and Wahhab I (2009) Tackling worklessness: A review of the contribution and role of English local authorities and partnerships. Department for Communities and Local Government.
25.
IngoldJEtheringtonD (2013) Work, welfare and gender inequalities: An analysis of activation strategies for partnered women in the UK, Australia and Denmark. Work, Employment & Society27: 621–638.
JessopB (2000) The crisis of the national spatio-temporal fix and the tendential ecological dominance of globalizing capitalism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24: 323–360.
28.
Jessop RD (2003) From Thatcherism to New Labour: Neo-liberalism, Workfarism, and Labour Market Regulation. In: Overbeek H (ed) The Political Economy of European Employment: European Integration and the Transnationalization of the (Un)employment Question. London: Routledge, pp. 137–153.
KeepE (2015) Further Education and Localism in the Context of Wider Debates Concerning Devolution, London: Association of Colleges.
31.
Lindsay R, Osborne SP and Bond S (2014) The ‘New Public Governance' and Employability Services in an Era of Crisis: Challenges for Third Sector Organizations in Scotland. Public Administration 92(1): 192–207.
32.
McNeilBReederNRichJ (2012) A Framework of Outcomes for Young People, London: Department for Education/The Young Foundation.
33.
MeeganRKennettPJonesG (2014) Global economic crisis, austerity and neoliberal urban governance in England. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society7: 137–153.
34.
NorthDSyrettSEtheringtonD (2009) Tackling concentrated worklessness: Integrating governance and policy across and within spatial scales. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy27: 1022–1039.
35.
PeckJ (2007) Neoliberalization at work: The long transition from welfare to workfare. In: WoodGJamesP (eds) Institutions, Production, and Working Life, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 315–331.
Work and Pensions Committee (2007) Full employment and world class skills: Responding to the challenges. Eighth Report of Session 2006-07 HC 939. London: The Stationery Office.
