Contractualism and social inclusion: strands of policy emulation in UK and Australian local employment services

Abstract

Over the past decade, the dominance of ‘new localism’, ‘partnerships’ and ‘social inclusion’ in policy discourse in countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has influenced Australian stated policy directions in employment services. In contrast to other OECD countries, however, Australian federal legislators have excluded local government in contractual service delivery and governance arrangements. In response, some Australian local governments draw on UK practice to guide social inclusion agendas and inclusive partnership models. There is irony in such use of policy transfer strategies given that the UK is currently reforming public employment services to emphasise the contractualism that typifies the Australian Job Network.

Promoting healthy pathways to employability: lessons for the UK’s welfare-to-work agenda

“…In seeking to reduce the scale of IB claiming, UK policy makers have relied largely on measures to restrict eligibility for benefits and demand increased 'workrelated activity' of claimants (Patrick, 2011), reflecting a dominant Work First ideology that advocates moving people into employment as quickly as possible, irrespective of the quality of the job or the barriers faced by the individual (Lindsay et al, 2007). Contracting out has been favoured by policy makers as the mechanism to deliver Work First employability services (Carson and Kerr, 2010).…”

Conditionality and the Financing of Employment Services – Implications for the Social Divisions of Work and Welfare

“…). In Australia, public employment services were likewise established as a commonwealth (federal) government responsibility in the postwar period (Carson and Kerr ). Since the 1990s, there has been a shift towards quasi‐markets in employment services.…”

“…With regard to the former New Deal for Young People, contracted providers expressed concerns that linking more of their funding to achieving job entries would lead to young people being encouraged to take jobs which were not of interest to them, when they might benefit more from participating for longer in an option on the programme (such as training or work placements) (Finn ). The Australian Job Network system was similarly found to reduce investment in training by providers where financial viability and competitive position within the market depended on maximizing employment outcomes at minimal cost (Carson and Kerr ). Considine et al .…”

“…With regard to the former New Deal for Young People, contracted providers expressed concerns that linking more of their funding to achieving job entries would lead to young people being encouraged to take jobs which were not of interest to them, when they might benefit more from participating for longer in an option on the programme (such as training or work placements) (Finn 2003). The Australian Job Network system was similarly found to reduce investment in training by providers where financial viability and competitive position within the market depended on maximizing employment outcomes at minimal cost (Carson and Kerr 2010). Considine et al (2011) found that, with the development of the Job Network system, there was a reduction in flexibility in the approaches of frontline staff within as well as between providers, with increasing standardization of service provision as a means of minimizing risk and ensuring organizational viability within the market (Considine et al 2011).…”

Social security law: what does the politics of ‘conditional welfare’ mean for review and client representation?

“…But the genuine devolution/ localisation of social security and welfare usually associated with social inclusion programs has rarely been attempted in Australia so far (Carson & Kerr 2010), unlike Europe, where properly decentralised job-services have received generally favourable report cards (Lindsay & McQuaid 2009;Damgaard & Torfing 2010). But the genuine devolution/ localisation of social security and welfare usually associated with social inclusion programs has rarely been attempted in Australia so far (Carson & Kerr 2010), unlike Europe, where properly decentralised job-services have received generally favourable report cards (Lindsay & McQuaid 2009;Damgaard & Torfing 2010).…”