The Commission on Social Security and participatory research during the pandemic: new context, abiding challenges

Purpose This study aims to evaluate patterns, trends and knowledge networks within social security research. By using bibliometric analysis, the research seeks to provide a comprehensive perspective on the evolution of global social security research. The purpose extends to identifying significant contributors, collaborative clusters and multifaceted issues addressed in the field. Design/methodology/approach This study uses bibliometric analysis to assess social security research trends and knowledge networks from 2015 to 2023. Using the Web of Science database, 6,152 relevant articles are analyzed. Quantitative techniques such as coauthorship network analysis, institutional productivity rankings and keyword clustering are applied for a comprehensive understanding. Findings The findings indicate a rising trajectory of publications in social security research, with the USA, China and Europe emerging as top contributors. Coauthorship patterns reveal collaborative clusters with focused research interests. Prominent authors emphasize key aspects like public policy, economics, health and labor dynamics related to social security. Keyword clustering identifies nine thematic clusters, ranging from inequality and poverty to retirement and disability reforms. A thematic map visualizes overarching categories, including motor themes, basic themes, niche themes and emerging themes. Originality/value This bibliometric study offers original insights into global social security research, providing a comprehensive understanding of its evolution, significant contributors and diverse thematic issues addressed. The originality lies in the application of quantitative techniques, including coauthorship network analysis and keyword clustering, to reveal collaborative patterns and thematic clusters. The study’s value extends to facilitating evidence-based decision-making for advancing the critical domain of social security through international collaboration and impactful research aligned with societal needs.

Women and Social Security, Report of Research Conference on Women and Social Security (Vienna, 2–4 November 1972), International Social Security Association, Geneva, 1973, Studies and Research No. 5. 245 pp. n.p. - Volume 4 Issue 1

Drawing on participatory research with people living in poverty, this article details the possibilities inherent in this research tradition and its particular applicability and as yet often unrealised potential for poverty and social security research. The dominant framing of ‘welfare’ and poverty foregrounds elite political and politicised accounts, which place emphasis on individual and behavioural drivers of poverty, and imply that the receipt of ‘welfare’ is necessarily and inevitably problematic. A large body of academic evidence counters this framing, illustrating the extent to which popular characterisations are out of step with lived realities. What is often missing, however, are the voices and expertise of those directly affected by poverty and welfare reform. This article argues that placing experts by experience on poverty at the centre of research efforts is best understood as constituting a direct challenge to the marginalising and silencing of the voices and perspectives of people living in poverty. While this hints at participatory research’s great potential, it is vital also to recognise the inherent challenges of taking a participatory approach. Significantly, though, participatory research can undermine popular characterisations of poverty and welfare and provide opportunities for alternative narratives to emerge, narratives which could contribute to the building of a pro-welfare imaginary over time.

The Commission on Social Security and participatory research during the pandemic:

In this chapter we examine a project called the Commission on Social Security, led by Experts by Experience (hereafter, ‘the Commission’). The aim of the project is to produce a White Paper style document on social security, setting out policy proposals for a better benefits system. The project takes a ground-breaking approach with all the Commissioners being people with lived experience of the social security system i.e. current or recent benefit claimants (referred to as ‘Experts by Experience’, the term having been decided on by the people with lived experience who became involved in the project).

The issues of social security at the level of individual nation-states and the world community in general were highlighted especially in the beginning of XXI century under the influence of political, economic and military challenges and threats. The article deals with the problem of social security as a welfare state priority in a global world. Author of the article discussed different approaches of social security phenomenon in theoretical aspects. Author of the article try to understand differences between Copenhagen and Paris school approaches on social security problem with connection of indicators of social expenditures and Social Progress Index (SPI). The result of research is the found positive relationship between social expenditures and social progress in different countries. Social security system is more developed in countries with high level of social expenditures and stimulates social progress. The results of research can be useful in discourse of social security progress in a context of social policy and social progress on national and global levels.

Studies of the delivery of social security in Britain and the United States have been dominated over the past twenty-five years by two related concerns: the operation of discretion and the structure of the appeals system. However, despite its prominence, the way in which discretion has been treated in social security research has been limited. In essence the elements of British social security that have been described as discretionary are those (I) not covered in legislative rules (either primary or secondary legislation), and (2) those designed to address the exceptional needs or circumstances of claimants. In 1990 this means essentially that discretion is only discussed in the context of the Social Fund,1 introduced in 1988 as a system of loans and grants to cover claimants’ exceptional needs. This is a very narrow conception of discretion, since most a priori definitions make no reference either to statutory regulations or to exceptional needs. It also implies a clear distinction between rules and discretion. In contrast, definitions of discretion in the academic literature recognize its relationship to rules and its relevance for all types of decision-making and all the stages in a decision-making process (Davis 1969; Hawkins 1986).

Double-BoundPutting the Power Back into Participatory Research Virginia Eubanks (bio) Oceans of ink have been spilled in recent years on the promise and perils of public participation in scientific and technological policymaking. H. M. Collins and Robert Evans recently argued that studies of experience and expertise, aimed at supporting Science and Technology Studies scholars to better perform boundary work between experts and the public, should constitute the “Third Wave” of science studies.1 Michael Lynch and Simon Cole explain, “repeated calls have been made for research that intervenes in public controversies about science and technology . . . Such proposals have become so prevalent, and so central to programmatic objectives in STS, that is fair to say the field has undergone a normative turn.”2 Of course, all of this recent normative technoscientific boundary work is informed by the (often unacknowledged) contributions of feminist sociologists of knowledge who have vociferously insisted, since the early 1980s, on developing better (that is, both more just and more true) accounts of the world created by science and technology. But as committed to extending technological decision-making as many of us are in theory, sharing control of our own research agendas and our institutional resources with nonacademic members of social movements and local communities still seems to befuddle us, to make us defensive and wary. All the fuss and confusion produced by recent debates about participation make perfect sense when you consider the political-economic context of the shift to participatory practices. Participatory methodologies have become hot topics because these practices currently serve to fill the gap left by the withdrawal of the state under globalized neoliberal regimes. For example, community development block grants, a key strategy in government devolution since the 1980s, were justified by arguing that program funding is more effective and efficient when decision-making is shifted to more local levels (a key premise in grassroots participatory organizing). The Personal Responsibility [End Page 107] and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA—otherwise known as welfare reform) reframed social welfare in terms of individual empowerment and personal responsibilities in order to justify state withdrawal from providing for the social welfare of its citizens, rejecting the call of new social movements for recognition of group rights and entitlements. And more recently, George W. Bush has argued that the traditional responsibility of government to care for its most vulnerable citizens should be transferred to faith-based organizations, because these programs are more attuned to local nuance and cultural specificity than the federal policy-makers. We should be deeply suspicious of participatory practices that displace macrosocial analysis, neglect the extra-local, eviscerate the state’s commitment to social welfare, or heighten emphasis on personal or individual responsibility under the guise of “empowerment.” Though the participatory practices I discuss here, like popular education and participatory action research, arose from radical social movements the world over, in recent years, the libratory potential of participation has often been unrealized or rerouted. States and supranational organizations such as the World Bank have co-opted the strategies—or at least appropriated the rhetoric—of social justice movements themselves. An apt name for this co-optation process has been suggested by Margaret Ledwith: “hijacking the language of liberation.” The co-optation of participation dovetails with the individualization of social welfare, “transforming rights into responsibilities by transferring the collective responsibility of the welfare state to the individual, the family and community as moral responsibility.”3 And yet grassroots participation should be a feature of any genuine democracy and is vital to the democratic production of knowledge. In my own studies at the intersection of Women’s Studies and Science and Technology Studies, examples abound of how those most affected by scientific and technological innovations are least consulted about their construction and deployment. This is so much the case that a number of social movements spawned in the US in the past fifteen years—including environmental justice, community supported agriculture, fair trade, reproductive justice and independent media—have arisen with the specific goal of challenging technocratic decision-making in areas as important to human life as clean water, breathable air, safe food, human rights to communication, and ability to self-determine one’s reproductive destiny...

UK employment policy is at a critical juncture; the effects of COVID-19 and Brexit on the labour market have heightened pre-existing and created new employment and income inequalities. Such experiences (and related temporary government policy responses) play out alongside the long-term roll-out of Universal Credit, a social security policy that imposes conditionality on a range of individuals, including people who are in work. As Universal Credit has the potential to transform power dynamics between individuals, the state and employers, revisiting and questioning the direction of active labour market policies (ALMPs) should unite the interests of diverse social security and employment researchers. Policymakers should draw on an abundance of research to reform the UK’s ALMPs and avoid replicating the problems of narrowly conceived work-first programmes and practices. In this chapter, we explore the role of social policy researchers in influencing policy change, reflecting on our own experiences as early career researchers. We advocate a ‘pragmatic realist’ approach to policy engagement and reflect on different approaches to operating at the evidence–policy interface.

Social security research is a relatively recent development. The interest in it and the way in which it has developed over about the last twelve years seems to have coincided, on the one hand, with the increasing financial difficulties of the social security systems and on the other with the realization that, in spite of the increase in the social security budget, numerous social problems remain to be solved.

This paper develops and applies a model in which doctors have two dimensions of skill: diagnostic skill and skill performing procedures. Higher procedural skill increases the use of intensive procedures across the board, while better diagnostic skill results in fewer intensive procedures for the low risk, but more for the high risk. Deriving empirical analogues to our theoretical measures for the case of C- section, we show that poor diagnosticians can be identified in the data and that improving diagnostic skill would reduce C-section rates by 15.5% in the bottom half of the risk distribution, and increase them by 5.5% in the top half. Such an change in the allocation of procedures would improve birth outcomes among all women.

Population is an inextricable problem in discussions on sustainability. Reportedly, the world population will peak at 10 billion and afterward start decreasing slowly. In Japan, however, population has raised different worries. There was a shocking news on this matter in newspapers and TV in May 2014. The Japan Policy Council (2014) reported that 869 municipalities out of 1800 in Japan are at risk of disappearance! The population in Japan has increased by two and a half from early 1600–1700, reaching 30 million, according to Development Bank of Japan, 2014. In the eighteenth century, agricultural tax began to be levied based on land area measurement, which was an incentive to farmers to cultivate more. The implementation of this tax policy allowed farmers to be independent, resulting in development of new fields and yielding higher productivity. In 1721, population census was performed by the Shogunate Government of Edo. But the population did not change from the middle of 1700 for 150 years when this government held onto power. The constant population during this period was due to starvation, illness, natural disasters, and also restriction of economic development because of Japan’s national isolation. Since Meiji Era, the population has increased by a factor of approximately 4, from 33 to 128 million (in 2008). The increase has been attributed to progress of industrialization, improvement of standard of living, and improving medical services, resulting in lower mortality rate. However, since 2010, the population has decreased by 200,000 people every year. In January 2015, the population in Japan is 127 million 20 thousand (Estimated value by Statistics Japan, 2015) and the population over 65-year old occupies 25 % of the total population. According to the investigation by National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, the total population in Japan is expected to be 86 million 740 thousand in 2060. As the population aging further proceeds, the population ratio over 65 years will occupy 39.9 %. The statistics cited above indicate that the social security system in Japan will not be sustainable at all. The outstanding obligation of the government is currently 10 trillion US dollars. This money will not be easily found. This is mainly caused by a low birth rate; therefore, several actions for this matter were taken. For example, the minister of State for Measures for Declining Birthrate was appointed in 2007 and has been taking the initiative in continuing countermeasures for the low birth rate. Regarding a countermeasure for the low birth rate, the Basic Act on Measures for the Aging Society was enacted on 8th January 1995. The objectives of the basic act were to highlight and support a view of an ideal society, where citizens meaningfully and comfortably live require many more young members in the families to support senior citizens. Based on the basic act, the General Principles Concerning Measures for the Aging Society were concomitantly formulated (http://www8.cao.go.jp/kourei/mea sure/taikou/etaikou.htm#p301). Notwithstanding the Basic Act, twenty years later today the birth rate still has not improved and Japan is entering a society of population decline. Therefore, it is imperative for Japan to prevent such a situation. Masuda et al. (2014) announced cities at risk of disappearing in Japan to make the people accurately and soberly recognize, as a starting point, the emerging matter, the so-called ‘‘inconvenient truth’’. In other words, in the cities at risk child-bearing female population aged between 20 and 39, i.e., the female M. Hosomi (&) Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, 2-24-16, Nakamachi, Koganei, Tokyo 184-8588, Japan e-mail: hosomi@cc.tuat.ac.jp

Japan is among the fastest aging and – as of 2005 – shrinking nations of the world. The life expectancy of Japanese men and women is among the highest, the total fertility rate among the lowest of all industrialized societies. Japan’s National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (NIPSSR), a think-tank under the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, predicts that by 2050 Japan will have lost twelve per cent of its population of 127.7 million. The population decline will be particularly pronounced among the working age population (15-64 years of age). This is what troubles politicians and business leaders most, since a decline in working age population, triggers labor shortages. When accompanied by an increase in elderly population, as it is predicted for Japan, it furthermore puts serious strains on the nation’s social security systems.

ABSTRACTThis paper was presented as background for discussion at the 8th Annual Conference of the Social Administration Association in Edinburgh in July 1974. The aim was to produce as comprehensive a review as possible within reasonable length and the rather awkward title is intended to convey that the paper covers activities, notably in the field of management, which somewhat stretch the normal meaning of ‘research’. An introduction briefly sketches as background the financial and physical scale of the Department's social security responsibilities. The remainder of the paper is laid out in four sections (corresponding to the way the Department is organized at headquarters); one dealing with social security research as the phrase would perhaps be most usually understood; one with statistics; one with the specialized work of the Economic Adviser's Office; and one with managerial research and allied activities. As indicated at the heading, this last section, which anyway did not claim to be comprehensive, has for present purposes been drastically curtailed, touching only on two topics which are, perhaps – especially the work of the Supplementary Benefit Commission's Inspectorate – of more general than specialized management interest. Otherwise the paper remains, apart from editorial changes, as presented to the Conference, and facts and figures do not take account of developments since then.

ABSTRACTThis paper was presented as background for discussion at the 8th Annual Conference of the Social Administration Association in Edinburgh in July 1974. The aim was to produce as comprehensive a review as possible within reasonable length and the rather awkward title is intended to convey that the paper covers activities, notably in the field of management, which somewhat stretch the normal meaning of ‘research’. An introduction briefly sketches as background the financial and physical scale of the Department's social security responsibilities. The remainder of the paper is laid out in four sections (corresponding to the way the Department is organized at headquarters); one dealing with social security research as the phrase would perhaps be most usually understood; one with statistics; one with the specialized work of the Economic Adviser's Office; and one with managerial research and allied activities. As indicated at the heading, this last section, which anyway did not claim to be comprehensive, has for present purposes been drastically curtailed, touching only on two topics which are, perhaps – especially the work of the Supplementary Benefit Commission's Inspectorate – of more general than specialized management interest. Otherwise the paper remains, apart from editorial changes, as presented to the Conference, and facts and figures do not take account of developments since then.