Investing in the citizen-workers of the future: transformations in citizenship and the state under New Labour
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent scientific report, commissioned by the Belgian Presidency of the European Union in 2001, Gøsta Esping-Andersen and colleagues presented “a set of building blocks” for the creation of a “new welfare architecture”. The architecture’s foundation stone is “a child-centred social investment strategy” (Esping-Andersen et al, 2002, pp 6, 26)1. The foundation stone is, in fact, already being laid in some countries – most notably the liberal-oriented welfare states of Canada and the UK. This [chapter] offers a critical analysis of the strategy’s genesis and implications in the UK, in the context of a brief overview of the more general transformations of citizenship and the state under New Labour. The [chapter] focuses in particular on the emergent “social investment state”’s construction of children – its main beneficiaries – as citizen-workers of the future. “No rights without responsibilities”, described by Anthony Giddens as “a prime motto” for third-way politics, sums up New Labour’s position on citizenship (1998, p 65). It is reflected in a range of social policies designed to regulate behaviour (Deacon, 2002). These include use of the benefits system not merely to promote the paid work ethic in the name of social inclusion but also to discourage and punish anti-social behaviour. In the words of Alistair Darling (when Work and Pensions Secretary): there is no unconditional right to benefit.... It’s not only possible, but entirely desirable that we should look at making sure the social security system and the benefits system are matched by responsibility.... It is right that we should ask ourselves if there is a role for the benefits system as part of the wider system in asserting the values we hold and asserting the kind of behaviour that we want to see.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it