Search

Sociologists have long been interested in the meaning workers derive from their jobs. The issue has garnered increasing academic and policy attention in recent years with the concept of "meaningful work," yet little is known about how social stratification relates to access to it. This paper addresses this issue by exploring how the meaningfulness of jobs—as rated by their incumbents—is stratified across classes and occupations in a national survey of 14,000 working adults in the United Kingdom. It finds modest differentials between classes, with those in routine and manual occupations reporting the lowest levels of meaningfulness and those in managerial and professional occupations and small employers and own account workers reporting the highest levels. Detailed job attributes (e.g., job complexity and development opportunities) explain much of the differences in meaningfulness between classes and occupations, and much of the overall variance in meaningfulness. The main exception is the specific case of how useful workers perceive their jobs to be for society: A handful of occupations relating to health, social care, and protective services which cut across classes stand out from all other occupations. The paper concludes that the modest stratification between classes and occupations in meaningful work is largely due to disparities in underlying job complexity and development opportunities. The extent to which these aspects of work can be improved, and so meaningfulness, especially in routine and manual occupations, is an open, yet urgent, question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Circular economy (CE) has emerged as a sustainable alternative to the current "take, make, waste" linear approach. Although prior studies have highlighted the salience of collaborative efforts between start‐ups and incumbents, little is known about the mechanisms behind collaboration in a CE context. This study enhances our understanding of the topic by drawing on six cases of circular start‐ups (CSUs) operating in the United Kingdom's business‐to‐business market and investigating the mechanisms by which start‐ups collaborate with incumbents. Using the Context, Intervention, Mechanism, Outcome framework, the paper's findings demonstrate that CE does not necessitate high‐risk and expensive changes and show that CSUs can collaborate with incumbents in low‐risk ways by outsourcing and developing service contracts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK government is responsible for meeting legally binding decarbonisation objectives, but it is not on track to meet its next Climate Change Act targets or the goal of Net Zero by 2050. The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report is a stark reminder of the importance of all countries, particularly those historically responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, devising and implementing the innovative and just policy solutions required to lower emissions. Within this context, this article explores the UK's sustainable energy policy making, and why it is not on course to meet targets, through the lens of government‐business relations. It analyses government policy capacity, incumbent energy company influence, and how complex relations and dependencies have affected sustainable policy (non‐)decisions and outcomes. It reveals that an over‐reliance on incumbent energy companies in UK energy politics, although understandable given the need to provide affordable and secure energy, has contributed towards insufficient space for cheaper and more just clean energy solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies suggest that Uber and other tech start‐ups disrupt markets through regulatory entrepreneurship. This practice describes how such companies operate outside of regulation or in legal gray areas before mobilizing their customers in support of regulatory change. Financial technology (FinTech) is sometimes called the "Uber of banking," but banking reveals different political dynamics than the car‐for‐hire sector. Exploring the rise of online‐only banks in the UK and Germany, this article finds that start‐ups such as Starling, Monzo, and N26 challenged incumbents without breaking or remaking regulation. The regulatory entrepreneurship approach, which sees FinTech as a difficult case, and the state world of regulatory innovation, which views policy‐makers as seizing the opportunity created by new technology to reassess their relationship with incumbents, help to explain these findings. Its conclusions have relevance for wider debates about the governance of health care and legal services and the politics of disruption more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]