IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cjrecs/v4y2011i3p355-367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A 'new politics' of austerity, workfare and gender? The UK coalition government's welfare reform proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Julie MacLeavy

Abstract

This paper considers the UK coalition government's austerity drive, which attempts to garner public support for the reduction or withdrawal of welfare entitlements through appeals to frugality, self-sufficiency and fiscal prudence. In particular, the paper considers the recasting of the former Labour government's work incentives and welfare disincentives amidst mounting pressures on public expenditure. The reorientation of state assistance towards work, coupled with the proposed simplification of working-age benefits and tax credits, is argued to present a particular challenge to the financial security and autonomy of women, signalling the end of the process of modernizing the welfare system that was forged around the single earner family model in the period of post-war austerity. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie MacLeavy, 2011. "A 'new politics' of austerity, workfare and gender? The UK coalition government's welfare reform proposals," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 4(3), pages 355-367.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cjrecs:v:4:y:2011:i:3:p:355-367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cjres/rsr023
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Harry Bromley-Davenport & Julie MacLeavy & David Manley, 2019. "Brexit in Sunderland: The production of difference and division in the UK referendum on European Union membership," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(5), pages 795-812, August.
    2. Lin Yang, 2018. "The relationship between poverty and inequality: Resource constraint mechanisms," CASE Papers /212, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    3. Lin Yang, 2018. "The net effect of housing-related costs and advantages on the relationship between inequality and poverty," CASE Papers /211, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    4. Yang, Lin, 2018. "The relationship between poverty and inequality: resource constraint mechanisms," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103463, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Julie MacLeavy & David Manley, 2018. "(Re)discovering the lost middle: intergenerational inheritances and economic inequality in urban and regional research," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(10), pages 1435-1446, October.
    6. Mia Gray & Anna Barford, 2018. "The depths of the cuts: the uneven geography of local government austerity," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 11(3), pages 541-563.
    7. Perugini, Cristiano & Žarković Rakić, Jelena & Vladisavljević, Marko, 2016. "Austerity and gender wage inequality in EU countries," MPRA Paper 76306, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Thomas Prosser & Giga Giorgadze, 2018. "Towards a theory of illiberal dualisation? Conceptualising new employment and social policy divisions in Poland and the United Kingdom," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 24(2), pages 151-162, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cjrecs:v:4:y:2011:i:3:p:355-367. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cjres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.