feat(data): Extract Whitworth2021
This commit is contained in:
parent
e1bb1b5fc3
commit
99672df48f
4 changed files with 57 additions and 2 deletions
|
@ -13834,7 +13834,7 @@ does NOT look at specific policy interventions}
|
|||
usage-count-last-180-days = {1},
|
||||
usage-count-since-2013 = {3},
|
||||
web-of-science-categories = {Environmental Studies; Geography; Regional \& Urban Planning},
|
||||
keywords = {country::Britain,inequality::spatial,region::EU,relevant,TODO::full-text,type::work\_programme},
|
||||
keywords = {country::Britain,done::extracted,inequality::spatial,region::EU,relevant,type::work\_programme},
|
||||
file = {/home/marty/Zotero/storage/R3RIUMNU/Whitworth_2021_Spatial creaming and parking.pdf}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
47
02-data/processed/relevant/Whitworth2021.yml
Normal file
47
02-data/processed/relevant/Whitworth2021.yml
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
|
|||
author: Whitworth, A.
|
||||
year: 2021
|
||||
title: "Spatial creaming and parking?: The case of the UK work programme"
|
||||
publisher: Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy
|
||||
uri: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-020-09349-0
|
||||
pubtype: article
|
||||
discipline: economics
|
||||
|
||||
country: United Kingdom
|
||||
period: 2011-2017
|
||||
maxlength: 72
|
||||
targeting: implicit
|
||||
group: unemployed
|
||||
data: Department for Work and Pensions Work Programme statistics
|
||||
|
||||
design: observational
|
||||
method: three-stage linear model
|
||||
sample: 1494
|
||||
unit: individual
|
||||
representativeness: national
|
||||
causal: 0 # 0 correlation / 1 causal
|
||||
|
||||
theory: social creaming & parking (used spatially)
|
||||
limitations: no causal inferrence attempted
|
||||
observation:
|
||||
- intervention: work programme
|
||||
institutional: 0
|
||||
structural: 1
|
||||
agency: 0
|
||||
inequality: spatial
|
||||
type: 1 # 0 vertical / 1 horizontal
|
||||
indicator: 0 # 0 absolute / 1 relative
|
||||
measures: employment
|
||||
findings: already deprived areas experience further deprivation
|
||||
channels: providers de-prioritize job-weak areas (spatial parking)
|
||||
direction: -1 # -1 neg / 0 none / 1 pos
|
||||
significance: 2 # 0 nsg / 1 msg / 2 sg
|
||||
|
||||
notes:
|
||||
annotation: |
|
||||
An analysis of the spatial consequences of a UK work programme on spatial factors of job deprivation or opportunity increases.
|
||||
The programme follows a quasi-marketized approach of rewarding employment-favourable results of transitions into employment and further sustained months in employment.
|
||||
The author argues, however, that the non-spatial implementation of the policy leads to spatial outcomes.
|
||||
Founded on the approach of social 'creaming' and 'parking' and applied to the spatial dimension,
|
||||
the study shows that already job-deprived areas indeed experience further deprivations under the programme,
|
||||
while non-deprived areas are correlated with positive impacts, thereby further deteriorating spatial inequality outcomes.
|
||||
This occurs because of providers in the programme de-prioritizing the already deprived areas ('parking') in favour prioritizing wealthier areas for improved within-programme results.
|
|
@ -14340,7 +14340,7 @@ does NOT look at specific policy interventions}
|
|||
usage-count-last-180-days = {1},
|
||||
usage-count-since-2013 = {3},
|
||||
web-of-science-categories = {Environmental Studies; Geography; Regional \& Urban Planning},
|
||||
keywords = {country::Britain,inequality::spatial,region::EU,relevant,TODO::full-text,type::work\_programme},
|
||||
keywords = {country::Britain,done::extracted,inequality::spatial,region::EU,relevant,type::work\_programme},
|
||||
file = {/home/marty/Zotero/storage/R3RIUMNU/Whitworth_2021_Spatial creaming and parking.pdf}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -715,6 +715,14 @@ The study also suggests some possible inequality being created in between the di
|
|||
Limitations include its design as a projection model with multiple having to make strong assumptions about initial employment numbers and their extrapolation into the future,
|
||||
as well as having to assume the amount of generated power to increase as a stable square function.
|
||||
|
||||
Similarly, @Whitworth2021 analysis of the spatial consequences of a UK work programme on spatial factors of job deprivation or opportunity increases.
|
||||
The programme follows a quasi-marketized approach of rewarding employment-favourable results of transitions into employment and further sustained months in employment.
|
||||
The author argues, however, that the non-spatial implementation of the policy leads to spatial outcomes.
|
||||
Founded on the approach of social 'creaming' and 'parking' and applied to the spatial dimension,
|
||||
the study shows that already job-deprived areas indeed experience further deprivations under the programme,
|
||||
while non-deprived areas are correlated with positive impacts, thereby further deteriorating spatial inequality outcomes.
|
||||
This occurs because of providers in the programme de-prioritizing the already deprived areas ('parking') in favour prioritizing wealthier areas for improved within-programme results.
|
||||
|
||||
Highlighted by these studies, one issue of spatial inequality especially is that in many cases policies are crafted that are targeted without any spatial component, intended to function nationally.
|
||||
These non-spatial policies will, however, carry effects on inequalities that are created or exacerbated by spatial inequalities themselves.
|
||||
Ideally, policies can make use of spatial effects without having to include explicit spatial components,
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue