These reports evaluate the Intensive Activity Programme (IAP) trial to help new benefit claimants move into work sooner.

The research aimed to provide greater insight into managing gender identity at work and its implications for UK workplaces. In particular, it aimed to provide relevant insights for managers and employees using primary research evidence.

Recent scholarship in the Human Resource Development (HRD) field considered how practice might respond to contemporary issues facing organizations, such as the emergence of the knowledge economy, and the need for lifelong learning and organizational flexibility. A similar set of challenges have pre-occupied European policymakers, with a notable debate on how to increase flexibility in Europe. The article reviews the theoretical debate on flexibility, and the related policy of “Flexicurity” that aspires to balance flexibility with employment security at the national level. The article argues that the challenges that both nations and organizations face should not be seen as mutually exclusive. Instead, it suggests that labor policy and workplace practice can be mutually enhancing and calls for a research agenda on “organizational Flexicurity.” The article suggests that HRD scholars are best placed to advance such an agenda, as career development and learning lies at the heart of those issues.

This paper examines the evolution of national social dialogue (bipartite wage bargaining) across European countries. Several commentators in the 1990s expected the dismantling of national social dialogue institutions. Following the liberalisation of markets, intensification of competition, and declining union power, bargaining structures were supposed to converge to the Anglo-Saxon model of decentralised bargaining. The paper seeks to gauge the plausibility of the ‘decentralization thesis’ using novel indicators of collective bargaining centralization across the EU15. It is shown that despite the changes in product markets, flexible working, and declining union density, a generalized decentralization of bargaining did not occur. Instead, in many European cases there is a counter-trend of centralization, which casts doubt to the decentralization thesis.

The central paradox of the contemporary world is the simultaneous presence of wealth on an unprecedented scale, and mass poverty. Liberal theory explains the relationship between capitalism and poverty as one based around the dichotomy of inclusion (into capitalism) vs exclusion (from capitalism). Within this discourse, the global capitalist system is portrayed as a sphere of economic dynamism and as a source of developmental opportunities for less developed countries and their populations. Development policy should, therefore, seek to integrate the poor into the global capitalist system. The Global Development Crisis challenges this way of thinking. Through an interrogation of some of the most important political economists of the last two centuries--D. Friedrich List, Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Schumpeter, Alexander Gerschenkron, Karl Polanyi and Amarta Sen--Selwyn argues that class relations are the central cause of poverty and inequality, within and between countries. In contrast to much development thinking, which portrays 'the poor' as reliant upon benign assistance, this book advocates the concept of labour-centred development. Here 'the poor' are the global labouring classes, and their own collective actions and struggles constitute the basis of an alternative form of non-elitist, bottom-up human development.

The industrial restructuring of the 1970s, the sluggish economic growth of the 1980s and the difficult macroeconomic scenario of the early 1990s which preceded the Italy’s joining of the EMU, gradually reduced the space for Keynesian economic policies in the country. In certain geographical areas, unemployment remained high over a long period of time and the Italian state had to confront this situation which was becoming socially and politically unsustainable. The solution found involved the long-term unemployed in a wide range of activities provided by public bodies, called socially and publicly useful jobs. At the end of the 1990s, under pressure from neoliberalism, many public bodies outsourced their public services, labour market deregulation was pursued, while supply-side labour polices gained ground.

This thesis examines the policy process during the paradigm shift, evaluates its impact on unemployment reduction, discusses the ways in which the policy’s outcomes were achieved, and highlights the role played by institutions during this long-term process. The approach chosen to evaluate the policy of socially and useful jobs distinguishes between three intrinsically linked stages of the policy process: policy-making, implementation and take-up. Recognising the central role of institutions in providing the context in which the policy process develops, the approach chosen for this analysis is historical-institutionalism. It is applied within the broader framework of the political economy which impacted on the transformation of the Italian welfare state and the rise of workfare practices.

The policy process evaluation led to some interesting findings. Firstly, many unemployed were re-inserted into the labour market due to their participation in socially and publicly useful jobs. Secondly, the activities they delivered allowed the communities to avoid disruption to important services and helped the state to save funds through the use of an inexpensive and productive workforce. Thirdly, the public administrations considered the outsourcing of services successful when they received high quality services from workers who were already known to them and were easily managed. Fourthly, the participation of the private companies in the last stage of the policy did not guarantee efficiency gains and, in several cases, the public administrations preferred to employ the socially and publicly useful workers directly.

Why do some governments adopt unpopular reforms entailing far-reaching liberalization of the labour market, while others opt only for marginal adjustments or even regulatory reforms? This paper explains the likelihood of different types of reform as an effect of different constellations of government partisanship and veto players. Combining the ‘blame avoidance’ and ‘veto players’ logics of politics, the paper argues that veto players have either a constraining or enabling effect depending on the partisan orientation of government. Correspondingly, liberalization is most likely to be adopted either by right parties facing few veto players, or by left parties in contexts with a high degree of power sharing. Regulatory reforms are most likely when left governments enjoy strong power concentration, but marginal regulation may be also adopted under external pressure by right governments facing many veto players. An analysis of employment protection reforms in 24 EU countries during 1990-2007 supports the argument that the effect of political constraints and opportunities on the choice of reforms is shaped by partisan differences