Application forms are often the compulsory interface between citizens and their social rights.Applicants for support must navigate the questions, checklists and blank spaces in often long, detailed documents to assert their social entitlements. Given their ubiquity and the central role they play in the administration of the welfare state, it is perhaps surprising that they have been neglected in favour of a focus on other documentation, principally policy and guidance. This paper argues that the non-fettering ground of reviewa principle whose jurisprudence is tied to the design and use of policyalso engages application forms. Through an analysis of 271 application forms used to administer the localised Discretionary Housing Payment scheme in England, three examples of their fettering potential are provided: the imposition of exhaustive criteria; requiring the applicant to self-classify or disclose irrelevant considerations; and constraining responses through tied evidential requirements. By arguing that the non-fettering ground should not limit itself to one kind of document (policy) when administrators are so reliant on another (application forms), the paper's broader agenda is to argue that principles of good administration should apply to all documentation used to administer social entitlement.

It is commonly argued that public support for the welfare state is in long-term decline in the UK. Evidence from the British Social Attitudes Survey (BSA) is typically cited to support this claim, but it only stretches back to 1983. Few would disagree that the Thatcher years offered an unusual socio-political-economic context, which raises a question over whether the BSA's early 1980s baseline provides a misleading view on support for the welfare state over the longue durée. In this article, we explore this issue, piecing together data from the Beveridge era through to the present day, drawing on data from contemporary studies and surveys; opinion polls; and historical government surveys and reports. Our method is undoubtedly a 'second best approach', making use of often limited historical data, which means we remain cautious in offering bold findings. However, we argue there is some evidence to suggest the 1980s were an unusual moment, suggesting the decline in support for welfare is less dramatic than analysis of the BSA might make it seem, but also that support for the welfare state during the postwar consensus years was likely more equivocal than we often believe it to be from today's perspective, perhaps reflecting a tendency to reify this period as a 'golden age' of welfare and so underplaying the complexity of the politics of social policy in the pre-BSA period.

This paper argues that central governments can avoid blame for cuts to social security by transferring discretionary powers to local authorities. When making reductions to entitlements, conferring discretion avoids delineating the boundary of who is affected, allowing: for conflicts at the heart of policy formation to be deliberately fudged; decisions to be shielded from the gaze of the public and the courts; and responsibility for the impact of budget reductions to be externalised. Using three 'welfare reforms' in the UK as examplesthe council tax reduction scheme, discretionary housing payments, and local welfare assistance schemes -four 'blame avoidance' functions of conferring discretion are proposed.

Application forms are often the compulsory interface between citizens and their social rights.Applicants for support must navigate the questions, checklists and blank spaces in often long, detailed documents to assert their social entitlements. Given their ubiquity and the central role they play in the administration of the welfare state, it is perhaps surprising that they have been neglected in favour of a focus on other documentation, principally policy and guidance. This paper argues that the non-fettering ground of reviewa principle whose jurisprudence is tied to the design and use of policyalso engages application forms. Through an analysis of 271 application forms used to administer the localised Discretionary Housing Payment scheme in England, three examples of their fettering potential are provided: the imposition of exhaustive criteria; requiring the applicant to self-classify or disclose irrelevant considerations; and constraining responses through tied evidential requirements. By arguing that the non-fettering ground should not limit itself to one kind of document (policy) when administrators are so reliant on another (application forms), the paper's broader agenda is to argue that principles of good administration should apply to all documentation used to administer social entitlement.

The final published version contains some minor differences following the proofing process ***

No abstract

This paper makes two interlinked arguments. First, that the 'concept of home'the focus of a burgeoning literature within housing studiesmeets Gallie's conditions for an 'essentially contested concept'. The influential theory, drawn on throughout the social sciences, seeks to explain concepts for which disputes are intractable; they cannot be settled by empirical evidence or argument. Second, that this 'essential contestability' is not just a theoretical label, it tells us something useful about how scholars can best employ the concept of home in their own work. The argument is put in three sections. The first provides a summary of Gallie's theory. The second argues that the concept of home meets Gallie's conditions for essential contestability. Finally, the third outlines the implications of the arguments put in the first two sections for scholars engaging with the concept of home.

No abstract