Skip navigation
The Progressive Policy Think Tank

IPPR Commission on Economic Justice

Calls for evidence

Open calls

Trade unions in the modern labour market

The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice is seeking evidence for a project on trade unions in the modern labour market. This project will produce a policy report to stimulate wider debate on the topic and will contribute to the Commission’s final report.

The Commission is seeking to understand the causes of the significant decline in union membership and collective bargaining since 1979, and the impact this decline has had on the UK economy and labour market. We will seek out best practice in the movement, and highlight where trade unions have innovated to adapt to a changing labour market. The project will set out what role trade unions could play in the labour market in the future, and outline changes that may be necessary to support this.

Key questions and areas of interest include:

  1. The decline of union membership and collective bargaining
  1. Why has union membership and collective bargaining declined in the UK? What extent can the decline be attributed to:
    • Sectoral change in the economy and the decline of unionised industries
    • Changing attitudes among workers of the benefits of joining a union
    • Changing attitudes among employers of the benefits of working with trade unions
    • Changes in public policy that have made it more difficult for unions to recruit and organise
    • Other factors
  2. How does the UK compare to other advanced economies in terms of union rights and the role of trade unions in the economy, and which countries provide possible models on industrial relations?
  3. What has been the impact of declining union membership on the UK labour market and economy, on workers and on employers?
  1. The future of trade unions and collective bargaining
  1. Should Government be concerned about the decline of trade union membership and collective bargaining, and should they play a role in helping to reverse this?
  2. What – if any – changes to the law are necessary to ensure unions are able to recruit and organise?
  3. What role could trade unions play at a firm level, a sectoral level, and a national level in improving the functioning of the UK labour market?
  4. What role can trade unions play in supporting the Government’s policy objectives including on skills, industrial strategy and productivity?
  5. What role can trade unions play in an economy which is being transformed by advances in technology and automation?
  6. How can we support social partnership, with strong trade unions working productively with employers in the long-term interest of both workers and businesses?
  7. What are the best examples of innovation and best practice, where unions have maintained their presence in sectors, or organised workers in non-traditional sectors?

What could the union movement do to adapt to a changing labour market and reverse the decline in membership and collective bargaining?

Land and land value capture

The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice is seeking evidence for a project on land, land value taxation and land value capture. The evidence received will contribute to the Commission’s final report and to separate policy papers.

The project seeks to understand the role of land within the economy: with respect to the distribution of wealth, as a driver of inequality, and in the specific context of our housing system.

The financialisation of land has had significant consequences for our economy and housing market. Wealth derived from land is highly unequally distributed in the UK, and our current economic system often encourages inefficient investment and speculation in land and property. This has wider economic, social and environmental impacts, including distortions in the housing system. For instance, the benefits of public investment in infrastructure and the awarding of planning permission largely accrue to private landowners who may have contributed very little to generate the rewards.

As part of the Commission’s work we will be exploring how public policy interventions can support a more equal sharing of the wealth generated by land. We will also consider how these interventions can reduce land speculation, support more productive investment in the economy and underpin a better functioning housing system.

The key questions and areas of interest on which we are seeking evidence include:

  1. Understanding the role of land within the economy and housing market

  • What impact does the current policy approach to land ownership, development and taxation have on the economy, the distribution of wealth and inequality?
  • How does the current approach impact our housing system?
  • Are current mechanisms for land value capture adequate? This will include consideration of the property and land taxation system as well as other policy mechanisms such as planning obligations, including Section 106, the Community Infrastructure Levy, land assembly and compulsory purchase.

  1. Policy responses

  • What can we learn from policy regimes in place in other countries? What are the advantages and disadvantages of approaches taken elsewhere?
  • What can we learn from previous approaches here in the UK to land value taxation and capturing land value? Why have past efforts to undertake substantive reform not succeeded?
  • Are there recent examples of effective public policy responses to capturing land value in the UK?
  • How could the tax system be reformed to spread wealth and income from land more equally, and to incentivise more productive investment?
  • What are the merits of a land value tax and what should the goals of such a tax be? Should a land value tax be targeted at land designated for a particular use i.e. residential or commercial (with alternative mechanisms in place for whatever is excluded, such as capital gains on residential property) or should such a tax be levied on all forms of land?
  • What are the other public policy interventions for capturing land value that should be considered? This could include reform to compulsory purchase, mechanisms for land pooling and assembly, and options for public, cooperative and community land ownership.
  • What are the barriers to introducing a land value tax or of any of the other policy mechanisms and how can they be overcome? What are the macroeconomic implications of proposals to capture land value and how can we avoid unintended consequences in their implementation?
  • At what governmental level are policy proposals best implemented? What should be done at UK level, in the devolved nations and regionally and locally?

We welcome submissions focusing on individual questions and issues as well as those addressing the field as a whole. We would be glad to receive work which has already been published or written but which we may not have seen.

Closed calls

Industrial strategy

The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice is seeking evidence for its project on industrial strategy. This is one of a series of inter-related projects which will contribute to the Commission’s interim and final reports. Most such projects will also result in the publication of working papers for wider debate.

The focus of the Commission’s work on industrial strategy is how public policy interventions can support or develop certain sectors or combinations of sectors of the economy, with the aim of enhancing investment, productivity and economic growth, and sharing the gains from growth more equitably across the UK’s nations, regions and socio-economic groups.

With this in mind, we are pleased to issue a call for evidence to inform the future of industrial strategy in the UK. Given the recent Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy Committee inquiry into this issue, we would particularly welcome submissions that add new evidence or arguments to the debate. 

Questions to which we are keen to receive responses include:

  • At the level of the firm, what might explain the UK’s longstanding poor productivity performance?
  • Why have previous attempts to invigorate the UK’s supply side – particularly outside of London and the South East – failed or not been sustained?  
  • What evidence is there on both successful and unsuccessful industrial strategies in other countries, and what can we learn from these in relation to the UK?
  • In which sectors or parts of the economy should industrial strategy be focused, and why?
  • What are the key approaches and policies – at both national and subnational level – which an effective industrial strategy should adopt?
  • What kind of policies and approaches can be used to revive depressed and de-industrialised areas?

We are pursuing separate projects on corporate governance reform, the provision of ‘patient’ capital, the devolution of economic policy, and education and skills. These areas will therefore not be included in this project, but will be aligned with the industrial policy framework we develop. Several of these projects will issue their own calls for evidence in due course; a call for evidence on corporate governance has already closed.

We welcome submissions focusing on individual questions and issues as well as those addressing the field as a whole. We would be glad to receive work which has already been published or otherwise already written but which we may not have seen.

Corporate governance

The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice is seeking evidence for its project on corporate governance. This is one of a series of inter-related projects which will contribute to the Commission’s interim and final reports. Most such projects will also result in the publication of working papers for wider debate.

The focus of the project is whether and how reform of corporate governance could address long-standing structural weaknesses in the British economy, especially our low investment rates and high levels of inequality, and can give a stronger voice to employees and other stakeholders.

Given both the Government’s ongoing consultation on this subject, as well as the extensive submissions to the Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy Committee inquiry on this issue, we would particularly welcome submissions that add new evidence or arguments to the debate.  We would be glad to receive submissions made to the Government’s consultation which have not yet been made publicly available.
 
Key questions and areas of interest include:

  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of the UK’s current model of corporate governance?
  • Why have past efforts to undertake substantive reform not succeeded, and how can we learn from these? 
  • Evidence on the relationship between alternative models of corporate governance and business performance
  • Proposals for reform of corporate governance which incorporate the interests and representation of stakeholders other than shareholders
  • Proposals for the reform of executive pay
  • Proposals for public policy on rules governing company takeovers

We welcome submissions focusing on individual questions and issues as well as those addressing the field as a whole. We would be glad to receive work which has already been published or written but which we may not have seen.

Financing investment

The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice is seeking evidence for its project on Financing Investment. This is one of a series of inter-related projects which will contribute to the Commission’s interim and final reports. Most of these projects will also be published as standalone working papers for wider debate.

The focus of the project is on the role of finance in the economy. We want to explore the ways in which the financial services industry, as it is currently constituted, helps deliver our broader economic objectives, namely: increased productivity; regionally balanced growth and better jobs. By channeling investment into the ‘real economy’, the financial sector is critical to both the near term success of the Government’s proposed industrial strategy, and indeed the long-term success of the British economy as a whole. But the myopic tendencies of financial firms, and the systemic risks inherent in our financial sector’s size and significance within the economy, may be hindering the sector’s ability to perform this role.

Given the Government’s forthcoming consultation on this subject as part of the Treasury’s patient capital review,  we would particularly welcome submissions that add new evidence or argument to the debate.

Questions to which we are keen to receive responses include:

  • What are the characteristics of a ‘good’, or ‘efficient’ financial sector?
  • Beyond systemic risk, what are the benefits and (opportunity) costs of the UK’s large financial sector? Has its growth over the last few decades translated into improved access to credit for firms?
  • How does credit access in the UK compare to other countries in the OECD?
  • What is the evidence that investment myopia is solely a British (or Anglo-Saxon) problem? And how have other countries dealt with it?
  • How easy is it for highly innovative firms to access funding (whether through equity or credit markets)? Are funding opportunities regionally sensitive?
  • What are the inefficiencies in private infrastructure-funding? To what extent are inefficiencies causes by the regulatory framework, or monopolies, or both?
  • To what extent are investments in both the housing stock and the financial sector itself ‘crowding out’ investments in the ‘real economy’.

We are pursuing separate projects on corporate governance reform, industrial strategy, the devolution of economic policy, and education and skills. These areas will therefore not be included in this project, although they remain closely aligned. Several of these projects will issue their own calls for evidence; those for industrial strategy and corporate governance have already closed.

We welcome submissions focusing on individual questions and issues as well as those addressing the field as a whole. We would be glad to receive work which has already been published or otherwise already written but which we may not have seen.

Automation

The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice is seeking evidence for its project on automation and the economy. This is one of a series of inter-related projects which will contribute to the Commission’s interim and final reports. Most such projects will also result in the publication of working papers for wider debate.

The focus of the project is the potential impacts of the substitution of labour by capital in the economy driven by the accelerating automation of both cognitive and physical work.  We will examine the combination of technologies likely to drive increasing automation, and what their impacts are likely to be in terms of the quantity and type of work in the economy and the distribution of the economic gains and losses. We will then suggest how public policy should best respond to maximise the benefits of accelerating automation and temper its less desirable effects.

Key questions and areas of interest in terms of the potential effects and policy responses to automation include:

  • What are the key technologies driving change?
  • What is the potential for significant productivity gains in key sectors as a result of automation and associated technological change?
  • What is the likely scale and impact of the loss of significant numbers of current jobs (in service sectors and professional occupations as well as in manufacturing sectors) and the distribution of these losses across sectors, regions and socio-economic groups?
  • How is the nature of work and therefore the labour force requirements of education and skills likely to change due to technological improvements?
  • How is automation likely to change the nature and distribution of income, and potentially of working time?
  • Will automation increase the concentration of income and wealth as a result of increasing returns to high-level, niche and intellectual / creative skills, and to the ownership of capital, and if so, on what scale?
  • What should the goals for public policy be in response to automation the next ten to fifteen years? 
  • What approaches, instruments, policies and institutions are available to governments to bring about these public policy goals?

We welcome submissions focusing on individual questions and issues as well as those addressing the field as a whole. We would be glad to receive work which has already been published or written but which we may not have seen.

Immigration

The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice is seeking evidence for its project on immigration. This is one of a series of inter-related projects which will contribute to the Commission’s interim and final reports. It will result in the publication of a discussion paper for wider debate.
 
The Commission’s work in this area will focus on creating a new immigration policy for post-Brexit Britain. We will look at how immigration policy can be shaped in order to contribute to a balanced, dynamic and just economy.
 
With this in mind, we are pleased to issue a call for evidence to inform the Commission’s work. We would welcome submissions that bring new evidence or arguments to the debate, as well as existing ideas and proposals for redesigning our immigration system post-Brexit. 
 
Questions to which we are keen to receive responses include:

  • How should future labour migration be designed to contribute to a balanced, dynamic and just economy post-Brexit? What are the advantages and disadvantages of employer-led, points-based, and hybrid systems?
  • How, if at all, can immigration policy be designed to address regional inequalities? What are the benefits and challenges of regional differentiation and devolution within the UK’s immigration system?
  • How can the future immigration system ensure the UK continues to attract top international talent from the EU and beyond post-Brexit (particularly in high-growth and high-innovation sectors)? How should current visa routes be adjusted / should new routes be introduced?
  • What steps could be taken within the UK’s immigration policy to boost productivity? How should this interact with government skills policy? What measures could be taken to ensure that employers invest in domestic skills while continuing to have access to skills internationally?
  • What, if any, is the relationship between migration flows and trade patterns? How could migration policy be used to improve the UK’s trade position after it leaves the EU?

Wealth and ownership in the UK

The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice is seeking evidence for its project on Wealth and Ownership in the UK. This is one of a series of inter-related projects which will contribute to the Commission’s interim and final reports. Most of these projects will also be published as standalone working papers for wider debate. 

The focus of the project is on how wealth can be generated and shared more equally in the UK, across nations and regions, gender, ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Wealth in the UK is highly unequally distributed, often inefficiently invested and does not currently offer all citizens a stake in the economy. We will be researching the shape of wealth inequality and how inequalities are produced including whether we can expect them to widen. We will be exploring which policies are most likely to redistribute existing and future wealth, as well as which policies could help generate equally shared new wealth. 

Questions to which we are keen to receive responses include:

  • How is wealth inequality likely to change between now and 2030 in the absence of policy intervention? 
  • What features of our current economic model and policies best explain the current distribution of wealth and likely future changes? (E.g. Impact of interest rates, quantitative easing, housing policy, fiscal policy) 
  • How could the tax system be reformed to spread wealth and income from wealth more equally, and to incentivise savings in productive assets? Specifically, we are looking at potential reform to capital gains tax, inheritance tax and an alternative gift tax, script taxes, land value tax and reform of council tax. 
  • Should the UK have a sovereign wealth fund? 
    • What should the goals of this fund be (e.g. maximising returns vs ensuring good social outcomes through investment)? 
    • How should a SWF for the UK be funded? 
    • How should the returns be used in order to share wealth more equally? 
  • How can companies be encouraged or required to share more wealth with their employees? 
  • How can government support the expansion of cooperatives, mutuals, and plural forms of ownership at the firm level?

We are pursuing separate projects on automation and the platform economy, labour markets and income, financing investment, and fiscal policy. These areas will therefore not be included in this project, although they remain closely aligned. Several of these projects will issue their own calls for evidence; those for automation and financing investment have already closed.

We welcome submissions focusing on individual questions and issues as well as those addressing the field as a whole. We would be glad to receive work which has already been published or otherwise already written but which we may not have seen.

The closing date for submissions is 21st September 2017. Please send your comments, by the 21st or sooner, to Carys Roberts, Research Fellow, at evidence@ippr.org with the subject line Wealth and ownership. If you will have material that is only available to send after the closing date we would still be pleased to receive it, though may not be able to use it in our initial research.

Devolving Power to the Nations of the UK and Regions of England

The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice is investigating how greater power over economic policy could be devolved to the nations of the UK and the regions of England. The UK has the most geographically unbalanced economy in Europe, with London and the Southeast too dominant, and significant assets outside of London not fully utilised. How can the devolution of economic powers and resources tackle this problem? This is one of a series of inter-related projects which will contribute to the Commission’s final report.

The project will focus on developing solutions rather than further description of the problem. Drawing together the large body of research IPPR has already produced analysing the UK’s uneven economic geography, the project will seek to develop a long-term devolution settlement which, by 2030, shifts significant economic power to the nations of the UK and regions of England. The aim is to realise the economic potential of the whole country, delivering inclusive and sustainable growth for all.

Each nation and region is clearly very different and will be treated separately. The project will be organised in two halves: one setting out a programme of potential further devolution to the UK nations; the other tackling the question of the English regions. This will then be tied together into a single coherent plan for the whole of the UK.

We accept that the 2030 settlement will likely be somewhat asymmetrical, and we don’t consider that to be a problem in itself. But we do believe greater coherence in relation to devolution within the UK can be achieved.

Equally, we accept that there are live constitutional questions within the UK, not least the independence debate in Scotland, and the Brexit effect in Northern Ireland. Our work to consider devolution of economic power within the UK does not preclude any future outcomes from these constitutional debates, and indeed our findings may be relevant to them.

Questions to which we are keen to receive responses include, but are not limited to:

  1. What has been the role of central government policy and the UK’s past and current governance arrangements in creating the unevenness in the UK’s economic geography?

    a. How closely are governance arrangements related to geographic concentrations of economic activity? What is the evidence on this both in the UK and in other countries?\

    b. To what extent have apparently centralised economic policy and passive industrial strategy contributed to the dominance of London in the UK’s economic geography?

    c. How have other countries approached this differently and with what results?
  2. Which powers are needed by nations, regions and sub-regions in order to drive inclusive and sustainable growth which utilises all of the UK’s assets?

    a. Which economic policy powers, or ‘drivers of growth’, are best exercised by nations, regions and sub-regions? Which economic powers should go to which level of government?

    b. Which other areas of public policy should be considered for devolution, where they are not already devolved, for the purpose of achieving inclusive and sustainable growth?

    c. Which (additional) fiscal powers should be devolved, to which levels, and how can this be achieved given geographical differences in economic performance?

    d. Which powers to intervene in the labour market should be considered as appropriate for devolution?

    e. How should industrial strategy be organised on a geographic basis?

    f. How should the departments of the UK government, especially the Treasury, be governed and reformed in order to align the interests of central government with those of the UK’s constituent nations and regions?
  3. How can devolution be achieved in practice?

    a. By 2030, what should be the settlement – which powers should be at which tier of governance? How can we bring coherence, while also allowing for asymmetry, within the devolved settlement in the UK?

    b. How should this be sequenced, and how should the pace and process of devolution account for differing levels of capacity and democratic legitimacy needed to take on powers in different parts of the UK?

    c. What can be learned from the experience of other countries which have pursued devolution (Canada, Japan and France for example)?

    d. What long-term framework and principles should political parties across the UK set out to guide this process through to completion?

    e. How should any new structures relate to existing ones, and how should policy-makers decide where to draw regional and sub-regional boundaries?

    f. What safeguards should be put in place?

    g. What should be the next steps for each nation and region of the UK?

This project is separate from, but closely related to, our ongoing work on industrial strategy, automation, migration and skills. We will be aligning the findings of these papers in the final report of the Commission on Economic Justice.

We welcome submissions focusing on individual questions and issues as well as those addressing the field as a whole. We would be glad to receive work which has already been published or otherwise already written but which we may not have seen. We are also very happy to receive papers pre-publication and will of course treat these however the authors wish.

We particularly welcome submissions specific to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, together with specific England regions. This project is being led by IPPR North and IPPR Scotland, who will be working hard to ensure the project is inclusive of all parts of the UK. Please let us know if you are interested in our programme of engagement.

Digital platforms and data

The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice is seeking evidence for a project on digital platform companies and the use of digital data. This project will produce a policy report to stimulate wider debate on the topic and will contribute to the Commission’s final report.

The Commission is seeking to understand the activities and impacts of digital platform companies on economic and, to a lesser extent, social systems and set out recommendations on how public policy can seek to maximise the positive potential of digital platforms and the data they collect and analyse. We use the term “digital platform” to refer to a company or digital service which organises and structures economic activity, such as Facebook and Amazon.

We particularly welcome submissions that review the policy regimes of other countries and the EU  seeking to formulate an effective public policy response to digital platforms.  

Key questions and areas of interest include:

  1. Understanding the impact of platforms
    1. What impacts are digital platforms having on sectors across the UK economy?
    2. Major platforms, particularly Facebook, Google and Amazon, are exhibiting oligopolistic or monopolistic behaviour. Is this inhibiting the pace and potential of innovation in and out of the digital economy?
    3. Platforms are enjoying ‘supernormal’ returns and market capitalisation values that are setting them apart from large firms in other sectors and, as a result, could be contributing to a rise in the share of income going to profit over labour. Are platforms increasing inequality?
    4. Are the business models of platforms having a negative impact on social relations and human health?
    5. Are platforms exerting large political power through lobbying operations and their impact on existing and emerging means of sharing information, among other factors? What are the implications of this?
  2. The future of platforms in an evolving economy
    1. Do the particular characteristics of digital platforms (such as low marginal costs and network effects) necessarily tend them toward monopolistic behaviour?
    2. Major platforms have a high rate of merger and acquisition of smaller companies across sectors, a strongly proprietorial approach to data, and seek to maximise user-ship of their services at the expense of others. Are these behaviours an inevitable outcome of the platform economy, or could they be ameliorated?
    3. By being able to draw on large datasets and research and development budgets, platforms have a head start in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). As AI becomes more important, what are the implications of a small number of platforms already emerging as dominant players in the development and use of AI?
  3. Policy responses
    1. What public policies can open access to platform data and its innovation potential to a wider set of stakeholders across the economy?
    2. Can competition policy regulate or limit the monopolistic tendencies of platform economy? How? Can this be done by individual national governments or does it require multinational action?
    3. How can tax avoidance by platform firms be reduced?
    4. What alternative ownership models might be usable for digital platforms?
    5. In which sectors might non-private actors meaningfully enter platform markets?

We welcome submissions focusing on individual questions and issues as well as those addressing the field as a whole. We would be glad to receive work which has already been published or otherwise already written but which we may not have seen.

Work in the UK economy

The IPPR Commission on Economic Justice is seeking evidence for a project on work and the labour market in the modern UK economy. This project will contribute to the Commission’s final report.

The Commission is seeking to understand different groups’ experiences of paid and unpaid work in the UK economy, including pay and conditions in formal employment, and how paid work fits into everyday life alongside unpaid responsibilities. We are exploring policies that would enable a greater proportion of the UK working age population to enjoy high-quality, secure and well-paid jobs; that would help the many families and individuals struggling to balance work with unpaid responsibilities; and that could reduce lifetime working hours to leave more time for activities other than paid work.

We are considering trade unions and collective bargaining in a separate project, for which we have issued a Call for Evidence closing 30th March.

The key questions on which we are seeking evidence are:

1. A fair deal on pay and job quality

  • Does the UK have a ‘flexi-insecure’ labour market, and how does this vary by region and industry? If, so which policies are key to maintaining this? How can employers’ ability and incentives to use insecure, low-hours and self-employed contracts be reduced, and would there be an impact on employment?
  • What is the relationship between minimum wage and productivity? Is there a case for a further gradual increase in the minimum wage; and/or sectoral or regional minimum wages?
  • How could welfare policy be designed more effectively to improve job outcomes for those returning to work, and those seeking to progress or increase hours? In particular, is there evidence that current conditionality mechanisms are perpetuating low-paid, insecure work?
  • What are the major causes of the gender, class and race pay and income gaps, as well as the intersections of these, and which policies could address them?
  • Is modern technology intensifying work, and how does this vary for different types of worker? What is the potential for policy to prevent this?

2. Enabling family life and fairly sharing unpaid work

  • What are the key policies that would enable people with caring responsibilities to combine work and care (E.g. forms of family and dependants leave, better alignment of school and working day)? Is there evidence of the impact of these policies in practice?
  • How can policies to enable the combination of work and care be designed to benefit:
    • Those in both secure and insecure, high-paid and low-paid work, as well as the self-employed?
    • Single parents
    • Everyone, regardless of gender. In particular, what is the potential for policy to be designed in order to shift culture regarding who performs unpaid work in the home?
  • What is the evidence regarding the impact of well-funded social infrastructure, including child, disabled and elder care services, on labour supply as well as broader wellbeing?
  • How can employers be encouraged to offer more high-quality, well-paid, part-time jobs?

3. An economy that remunerates in time as well as pay

  • What policy levers are available to decrease working hours? In particular, how could this be achieved not just for the well-paid employed, but people on low-incomes, in insecure work, and the self-employed?
  • What evidence is there of preferences on the margin between additional leisure time/time for family, and additional pay? Do these preferences differ by group?
  • Reduced working hours could support a shorter working week, longer periods of leave, or enable shorter working lives (relative to how long they are likely to be, given rising life expectancies). Which of these would be of greatest benefit, and to who? And, what mechanisms would allow individuals to choose the arrangement that suited them best?
  • What is the evidence regarding the relationship between working hours and productivity? To what extent is ‘Parkinson’s Law’, whereby the time a task takes to complete tends to equal the time available, in evidence at the firm and country level?
  • What is the evidence of under and over employment in the UK, and what are the causes of this mismatch?

We welcome submissions focusing on individual questions and issues as well as those addressing the field as a whole. We would be glad to receive work which has already been published or otherwise already written but which we may not have seen.