Weaving Together Policies for Social Inclusion in Ireland
... Social inclusion (SI) is a concept that has risen to prominence in many spheres worldwide. Supranational organisations such as the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank have all acknowledged the concept and discussed the potential benefits of working to improve the SI status of people and populations worldwide [1][2][3][4]. The general presumption is that people who are socially included are happier, healthier and more productive. ...
Background:
Social inclusion is a complex concept, and its relationship to health has been widely debated. Across the European Union, there has been a move towards policies promoting social inclusion. Despite this, there has been a limited analysis of how the concept of social inclusion is operationalised in Irish policy. The aim of this research was to document and map the development of social inclusion policies in the Irish context. The objectives were to identify all the relevant stakeholders and policies and to describe the relevance of social inclusion policy in the domain of health.
Methods:
We utilised a widely recognised policy analysis framework. We conducted a systematic search of relevant government policies, grey literature databases, statutory agencies and stakeholders in the Irish context since 2006. The researchers initially identified a total of 954 results.
Results:
The relevant stakeholders discovered were the research community, service providers, civil society organisations, policy makers and government, philanthropists and socially excluded people. Most policy documents included refer to one of two national policies created to drive social inclusion activities. Social inclusion was being operationalised in the context of health, but the relationship between policymakers and those planning and providing services was unclear.
Conclusions:
The concept of social inclusion was being operationalised in the Irish policy context. A multitude of stakeholders were involved, reflecting the wide reach of this concept in society. Social inclusion was a particularly important concept in the realm of health, and in the primary care domain in particular.
The past was a different country, and the future will be different too. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought in its wake massive unemployment, shifting attention away from pre-pandemic labour market challenges. More labour market turbulence can be expected in the context of the fourth industrial revolution, digitalisation and automation, as well as climate-change-related transitions. In this context of such acute uncertainty, flexible, adaptable public employment institutions are a core requirement. Concerned with institution building, this paper explores how to maximise synergies in existing Public Employment Services (PES) while developing an ecosystem that can utilise all other available resources across public, private and not-for-profit national and local institutions. The political context for policy and institutional reform is a centralised, relatively small and open state which demonstrates some capacity to learn from previous crises and institutional reforms to tackle unemployment. The concept of a Strategic Action Field is used to deepen our understanding of the structure and agency dynamics underlying PES reform in the context of quasi-markets. A more systematic approach to institutional reform is needed that values a diversity of actors – this is visualised as a Public Employment Eco System (PEES) embedded in processes of network governance and collaborative innovation.
In this paper the authors draw on a qualitative study of low-work-intensity households in a disadvantaged suburb of Dublin in 2016–17 to identify some of the gaps in Ireland’s reformed ‘one-stop shop’ Public Employment Service. Drawing on the issues recognised as being required in an integrated Public Employment Service, the paper draws attention to gaps in information; training; services that support employment, such as childcare and housing; and links to employers. The authors conclude by drawing lessons on the issues which need to be addressed for a more tailored Public Employment Service.
Agencification was one of the main pillars of the New Public Management reforms in Europe in the 1980s and 1990s. The strong increase in the number of agencies and the extension of their autonomy (especially with regard to independent regulatory agencies) significantly changed the organizational architecture of governments. However, the review of organizational reforms implemented over the past two decades in European administrative systems demonstrates a trend towards the rationalization and consolidation of the agency landscape. This article provides insight into major forms and patterns of consolidation, including comprehensive, cross-sectoral agency rationalization initiatives and more selective reforms regarding specific policy areas or types of government functions. It also explores the background of the consolidation reforms, confirming that economic pressures affecting governments in the era of austerity played a crucial role in redefining the position of agencies in governments’ organizational set-up.
Points for practitioners
Agencies remain the main vehicle for policy implementation across Europe but the trend towards de-agencification emerged in the decade of the 2010s, represented by both comprehensive, cross-sectoral initiatives reducing the agency stock, and consolidations in specific policy areas or covering agencies of specific types. De-agencification was triggered by the 2008 global financial crisis that increased the pressure on the reduction of administrative expenditure. To a lesser extent, it was a reaction to the adverse effects of agencification, such as coordination and steering problems, or the ambiguous impact of agencification on the efficiency of the public administration.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.