I admit I did not follow this thread
closely, what I'd like to know, where the EXTRA
jobs are coming from for these targeted
people?
Eva
>
> I would like to share my concerns about an apparent contradiction in
> the UK Employment Zones approach.
>
> Reform of active labour market measures in Canada and the UK in the 1990s
> has involved increases in targetting (but not money), by which I mean the
> number of discrete programmes aimed at those with distinctive needs
> (youth, the long term unemployed, older labour force participants, etc).
>
> This creates a rigidity when administered on a regional basis. When
> administered at the local or regional level, the administrators have a
> specific budgetary allotment for, say, youth, and a different allotment
> for the aged, both of which are pretty much set. If one locale (zone) has
> more youth unemployment than unemployment among older workers, too bad;
> they must spend the allotment as budgeted and programmed. In this context,
> the UK Employment Zone proposals (if I'm reading the proposals correctly)
> show promise, for they allow localities the flexibility to reallocate
> funding according to needs - budgetary decentralisation with a
> small measure of local policy discretion.
>
> But wait, what about all these other conditions? Those over 25 and are
> classified as long(ish)-term unemployed (over 1 year) are targeted - a
> slight claw-back of decentralization. A minimum amount must be spend on
> certain key targeted programmes - a restiction on policy making
> capacity of the zone. Project success stories will be
> replicated across Britain, whether they are suitable to other regions or
> not - a reduction in local flexibility. And what happens when the central
> governments wants to target another class of labour market participant?
> Budgetary centralisation and a reduction in local policy discretion,
> that's what.
>
> In fact, this is the cycle that has taken place in Canada:
> (1.) demands for more flexibility come from local programme offices of
> the federal ministry; (2.) budgetary allotments between programmes are
> made more flexible; (3.) new demands emerge for another targeted
> programme, such as youth; (4.) central level of government demands
> such-and-such amount spent on the new initiative (or package of
> iniatiatives), and local flexibility is reduced. With the Blair
> government embarking on an on-going redesign of the welfare state, the
> likelihood of new targeting measures seems very high.
>
> What this boils down to is one question: are these local
> experiments to create ideas for redesigning of the larger system, or are
> they pilot projects in decentralisation of the entire system? (Surely,
> the maintenance of a small and perminent cadre of priviledged zones is
> politically unsustainable as backbenchers lobby behind the scenes for
> special status for their own constituencies.) This is an either-or
> proposition, each with its own perils, for making compromises between the
> two creates an overly complex system - a state that active measures
> sometimes seem prone to gravitate towards. The Australian scenario would
> be the risk: programme targeting becoming so complex and success so
> difficult to monitor that, eventually, those held accountable get fed up
> with the unwieldliness and chop the system down to size.
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
> Cheers, Peter Stoyko
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Peter Stoyko
>
> Carleton University Tel: (613) 520-2600 ext. 2773
> Department of Political Science Fax: (613) 520-4064
> B640 Loeb Building V-mail: (613) 731-1964
> 1125 Colonel By Drive E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ottawa, Canada, K1S 5B6 Internet: http://www.carleton.ca/~pstoyko
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:51:41 +0100 GMT
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: UK Employment zones: will they work?
> >
> > UK Employment zones: will they work?
> > Zones d'Emploi britanniques: marcheront-ils?
> >
> > The Blairite solution to poor prospects for employment is to identify parts
> > of Britain where these problems cluster and then concentrate resources.
> > Smart. Will the policy work?
> >
> > Employment zones are areas where the usual national programmes for
> > the unemployed will be ditched in favour of running trials of local
> > initiatives. The five areas chosen to pilot the scheme all have high
> > concentrations of the long-term jobless.
> >
> > "Employment Zones will give communities the flexibility to devise local
> > solutions which best meet local needs," said the Employment Minister,
> > Andrew Smith, when he invited bids for zone status last September.
> > Plymouth, Liverpool, north-west Wales, south Teeside and Glasgow
> > began running their own programmes in February. The schemes must all
> > include training plans to improve employment prospects, business
> > enterprise to help the jobless move into self-employment, and
> > neighbourhood regeneration - work which improves the wider community.
> >
> > Ideas from the five areas include individual learning accounts, mentors for
> > the jobless, free child-care vouchers, and specialised training for seasonal
> > workers. In some cases benefit rules will be relaxed, like the ban on
> > studying more than 16 hours a week while on Job Seekers Allowance.
> > The Government is hoping that the zones will replicate the success of
> > initiatives like the Wise Group in Glasgow which has a better record than
> > the Employment Service at getting the long-term jobless back into real
> > careers.
> >
> > The schemes will be aimed at people aged 25 and over, who have been
> > out of work for more than a year; a group whom the Government's critics
> > say have been neglected because policies have focused on the young
> > unemployed. Participants on the schemes will be volunteers who will
> > receive their benefit plus a GBP 15 a week top-up. Some 5,000 people
> > will be covered in the five zones.
> >
> > Like the New Deal, programmes will be run by a combination of
> > Government, local businesses and voluntary organisations. The GBP
> > 58m budget is fairly small by New Deal standards, but if the programmes
> > are successful the Government will expand the best features nationally.
> > The inspiration for pouring in resources to specified parts of the country
> > came from Chris Smith when he was opposition spokesman for social
> > security. He suggested consolidating all the resources spent on
> > unemployment through benefits, training programmes, regional
> > assistance budgets and European funds into one budget, and allocating
> > grants directly to individually tailored schemes.
> >
> > Experts are cautiously enthusiastic about the potential of the zones to
> > generate new approaches for tackling unemployment. The biggest
> > danger, according to John Philpott from the Employment Policy Institute,
> > is that the Government could get cold feet when it comes to implementing
> > the ideas across the country. "The previous government would launch
> > pilots and them let them drop regardless of how successful they were. It
> > shouldn't just be about talking up sexy ideas but about seeing them
> > through." Local support is the key, says Paul Convery from the
> > Unemployment Unit. "It demands high levels of local political leadership.'"
> >
> > Source: Charlotte Denny (c) Guardian 21/04/98
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
