Austerity, Welfare and Work. Etherington, David

deployed by both the trade unions and civil society organisations which are challenging the discriminatory and oppressive practices embedded in the implementation of policies. Of particular importance is the vulnerability of women to financial abuse in the UC payment system and the operation of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), which is deeply contested by disability rights organisations.

      One of the theoretical arguments of the book is that integral to neoliberalism and austerity is the deepening geographical uneven development as illustrated by increasing urban and regional inequality. Furthermore, the trend towards rescaling state policies with a greater role for local institutions in the implementation of welfare and employment policies has been a defining feature of state restructuring since the 1970s. Devolution and the creation of the Northern Powerhouse is a pivotal part of the Conservative agenda for ‘regenerating’ the regions. Chapter 5 analyses the devolution of welfare policies in Greater Manchester, the government’s flagship devolution initiative. Greater Manchester’s economy has been impacted by deindustrialisation with major socioeconomic implications. Drawing on devolution research in Greater Manchester the chapter explores the way uneven development and the precarious dimension to economic development in the deindustrialised cities is shaped by wider class strategies particularly around ‘Austerity Welfarism’ reforms and waves of labour conditionality. It concludes by identifying and analysing the role of key actors (trade unions, local government, community organisations) who are negotiating and challenging the premise of devolution.

      Continuing the theme of analysing the way devolved austerity and employment policies are shaping city region economies and social relations, Chapter 6 explores the link between work-first policies, industrial relations and precarious work in Sheffield. Sheffield was identified as the city with the highest proportion of workers paid below the living wage and, from this finding, the local trade union movement established the Sheffield Needs a Pay Rise Campaign. Work-first policies provide a ready supply of compliant labour into insecure and non-unionised employment. This dovetails with policies aimed at attacking trade union organising such as the 2016 Trade Union Act, described as the ’final coup de grace’ on an already weakened movement (Tuckman, 2018: 104). This raises the question of how the two processes connect and interact – workfare and employment relations. In other words, how are employment rights and unionisation undermined by a process of funnelling labour into low-paid, unskilled jobs? How do industrial and other actors respond and negotiate the challenges of welfare conditionality on employment relations? The chapter draws from work undertaken as part of the Sheffield Needs a Pay Rise (SNAP) campaign in 2018 (Etherington et al, 2018). The SNAP campaign, initiated by Sheffield Trades Union Council (STUC), is linked to the Britain Needs a Pay Rise campaign organised by the national TUC.

      For many years I have sought to explore the political economy of welfare in the UK from a comparative perspective using Denmark as a comparator country (Etherington, 1998; Etherington and Jones, 2004a; Ingold and Etherington, 2013). The value of comparison is that it provides insights and a window into the social processes and class forces which configure a particular welfare settlement (in this case the UK). Comparative research also provides insights into innovations and progressive politics that may offer lessons and another perspective on the UK. This forms the basis of the analysis of the Danish system of welfare and employment relations, which is the focus of Chapter 7. In Denmark, social democracy has arisen from a strong trade union movement and the historic legacy of class politics, where many aspects of the welfare consensus based on universal and relatively generous benefits have been retained. Unemployment insurance (UI) operates under the Ghent system, which has a long history in Denmark, whereby the trade unions have traditionally managed unemployment insurance benefits since the 1930s. These benefits are based on individual contributions through employment; in the event of unemployment, unemployed people will receive their benefit from the UI office run by the relevant sector trade union. This also includes the provision of state-supported universal childcare (Ingold and Etherington, 2013). There are features of neoliberalism in the restructuring of welfare in Denmark, including the tightening of benefit conditionality, a more workfare approach to targeted groups, and the implementation of austerity and expenditure cuts in the public sector. However, many aspects of universal welfare are retained, including the model of capital/labour relations through social dialogues, coordinated collective agreements and the provision of subsidised childcare.

      Chapter 8 concludes by developing the discussion of the Danish model further arguing for an alternative strategy towards an inclusive labour market and welfare agenda (with some of these ideas contained in the Corbyn-led Labour Party 2019 manifesto). As a postscript, I first make a brief ‘post-election’ assessment arguing how the geographies of austerity and the electoral response from the ‘left behind’ regions played a crucial role in the results. I follows this with a brief assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 crisis. I briefly set out some ideas regarding another welfare and employment model. For example, a central argument of the book is that an industrial relations model based on coordinated collective bargaining and enhanced employment rights will underpin an inclusive welfare agenda. I demonstrate how this works in relation to the Danish model of job rotation. As ‘work’ is in the title of the book it is important to consider critically the meaning of work and that it is not the route out of poverty given that large sections of the population are either not able to work and/or categorised as ‘economically inactive’. How can work–life balance be achieved in an unforgiving labour market? There is no doubt that strong trade unions and bargaining practices can play a role in developing this balance. Defending and expanding the role of democratic and accountable public services, especially local government, is key to the development of a more egalitarian welfare model.