More than marketised? Exploring the governance and accountability mechanisms at play in Social Impact Bonds

ReferencesReferences

• Aiken, A., and I. Bode. 2009. “Killing the Golden Goose? Third Sector Organizations and Back-to-Work Programmes in Germany and the UK.” Social Policy & Administration 43 (3): 209–225. doi:10.1111/spol.2009.43.issue-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T., and R. Davies. 2011. “Outcome-Based Service Commissioning and Delivery—Does It Make a Difference?” In New Steering Mechanisms in Public Management (Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management, edited by S. Groeneveld and S. van de Walle, 93–114. Vol. 21. Bingley: Emerald.
   Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T., and E. Löffler. 2009. Public Management and Governance. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, E., and A. Whitworth. 2015. “Creaming and Parking in Quasi-Marketised Welfare-To-Work Schemes: Designed Out of or Designed in to the UK Work Programme?” Journal of Social Policy 44 (2): 277–296. doi:10.1017/S0047279414000841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, E., C. FitzGerald, R. Dixon, C. Economy, T. Hameed, and M. Airoldi. 2018. Building the Tools for Public Services to Secure Better Outcomes: Collaboration, Prevention, Innovation. Government Outcomes Lab, University of Oxford, Blavatnik School of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Considine, M. 2001. Enterprising States: The Public Management of Welfare-to-Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Doherty, B., H. Haugh, and F. Lyon. 2014. ““Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda.” International Journal of Management Reviews 16: 417–436. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowling, E., and D. Harvie. 2014. “Harnessing the Social: State, Crisis and (Big) Society.” Sociology 48 (5): 869–886. doi:10.1177/0038038514539060.
   Google Scholar
• DWP (Department for Work and Pensions). 2010. The Work Programme: Invitation to Tender. London: Department for Work and Pensions.
   Google Scholar
• DWP (Department for Work and Pensions). n.d. The Innovation Fund Invitation to Tender Specification and Supporting Information. London: Department for Work and Pensions.
   Google Scholar
• Edmiston, D., and A. Nicholls. 2018. “Social Impact Bonds: The Role of Private Capital in Outcome-Based Commissioning.” Journal of Social Policy 47 (1): 57–76. doi:10.1017/S0047279417000125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finn, D. 2012. “Sub-Contracting in Public Employment Services: The Design and Delivery of Outcome Based and Black Box Contracts, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission.” Accessed 30 March 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=964
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, A., S. Tan, M. Lagarde, and N. Mays. 2016. “Narratives of Promise, Narratives of Caution: A Review of the Literature on Social Impact Bonds.” Social Policy and Administration. doi:10.1111/spol.12260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths, R., A. Thomas, and A. Pemberton 2016. “Qualitative Evaluation of the DWP Innovation Fund: Final Report, Research Report No 92. London: Department for Work and Pensions.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson-Wright, E., S. Gardiner, and V. Putcha. 2015. The Potential and Limitations of Impact Bonds: Lessons from the First Five Years of Experience Worldwide. Washington, DC: Brookings.
   Google Scholar
• Heins, E., and H. Bennett. 2016. “‘Best of Both Worlds’? A Comparison of Third Sector Providers in Health Care and Welfare-to-Work Markets in Britain’.” Social Policy & Administration 50 (1): 39–58. doi:10.1111/spol.12126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschman, A. 1970. Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• HM Government. 2016. Social Investment: A Force for Social Change 2016 Strategy. London: Cabinet Office.
   Google Scholar
• HM Government. n.d. “Innovation Fund Key Facts”. Accessed 10 December 2017. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212328/hmg_g8_factsheet.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jantz, B., T. Klenk, F. Larsen, and J. Wiggan. 2015. “Marketization and Varieties of Accountability Relationships in Employment Services Comparing Denmark, Germany, and Great Britain.” Administration & Society 1–25. doi:10.1177/0095399715581622.
   Google Scholar
• Koning, P., and C Heinrich. 2013. “Cream‐Skimming, Parking and Other Intended and Unintended Effects of High‐Powered, Performance‐Based Contracts.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32 (3): 461–483. doi:10.1002/pam.21695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane, P., R. Foster, L. Gardiner, L. Lanceley, and A. Purvis. 2013. Work Programme Evaluation: Procurement, Supply Chains and Implementation of the Commissioning Model. London: Department for Work and Pensions.
   Google Scholar
• Meager, N., B. Newton, R. Sainsbury, A. Corden, and A. Irvine. 2014. Work Programme Evaluation: The Participant Experience Report. London: Department for Work and Pensions.
   Google Scholar
• NAO (National Audit Office). 2015. Outcome-Based Payment Schemes: Government’s Use of Payment by Results. London: NAO Communications.
   Google Scholar
• Newton, B., N. Meager, C. Bertram, A. Corden, A. George, M. Lalani, H. Metcalf, H. Rolfe, R. Sainsbury, and K. Weston. 2012. Work Programme Evaluation: Findings from the First Phase of Qualitative Research on Programme Delivery. London: Department for Work and Pensions.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2016. Social Impact Bonds: State of Play and Lessons Learnt. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• PAC (Public Accounts Committee). 2013 Department for Work and Pensions: Work Pro- Gramme Outcome Statistics, Thirty-third report of session 2012–13. London: Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Rees, J., A. Whitworth, and E. Carter. 2014. “Support for All in the UK Work Programme? Differential Payments, Same Old Problem.” Social Policy & Administration 48: 221–239. doi:10.1111/spol.12058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rees, J., R. Taylor, and C. Damm 2013. “Does Sector Matter: The Role of the Third Sector in the Work Programme.” Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper No. 92, University of Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, T. 2013. “The Centre for Social Impact Bonds.” Civil Service Quarterly. Issue2. 27 – 30. Accessed 30 March 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251799/Civil_Service_Quarterly_Issue2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Warner, M. E. 2013. “Private Finance for Public Goods: Social Impact Bonds.” Journal of Economic Policy Reform 16 (4): 303–319. doi:10.1080/17487870.2013.835727.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitworth, A., and E. Carter. 2017. “Rescaling Employment Support Accountability: From Negative National Neoliberalism to Positively Integrated City-Region Ecosystems?” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 36 (2), 274–289. doi:10.1177/2399654417708788
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worthstone. 2013. “Social Impact VCT plc: Financial Planner Summary and Analysis.” Accessed 30 March 2017. http://www.worthstone.co.uk/adviserarea/assets/pdfs/Worthstone_ProductReview_VCT.pdf
   Google Scholar
• WPSC (Work and Pensions Select Committee). 2013. Can the Work Programme Work for All User Groups? First Report of Session 2013–14. House of Commons, London: Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar