Our project will examine a crucial question for ageing societies: how inequalities across the life course relate to paid work in later life in the UK. This issue is of growing importance since the UK, in common with many other governments across the world, is rapidly extending the working lives of older adults through the postponement of State Pension Age (SPA) and other measures. These policy reforms affect millions of people, yet their implications for health and wellbeing are unknown. Do these policies harm, benefit or have little effect on the population? To answer this, we need to understand the lifelong drivers affecting the complex relationship between paid work in later life, health and wellbeing. Our project extends an existing UK-Canadian collaboration that is examining lifecourse influences on later life work trajectories and their implications for health and wellbeing across five countries (including the UK). We will build on this work to address the implications for health and wellbeing of undertaking paid work up to and beyond SPA in the UK. This is important because comprehending what distinguishes those who work beyond SPA from those who retire at or before SPA is key to understanding the extent to which there is scope to extend SPA without exacerbating social inequalities. In industrial societies, near universal retirement from paid labour linked to the provision of state pensions has been heralded as a significant advance in older people's wellbeing. It is increasingly clear, however, that as longevity increases social welfare systems face significant fiscal challenges. In response, many countries, including the UK, have implemented retirement reforms such as abolishing mandatory retirement and raising state pension ages. These changes have fostered tension between the desire by individuals for a funded retirement at the normative age (e.g. 60 or 65) and the perceived economic need for populations to work longer in the context of societal ageing. Moreover, there is increasing concern that these policies may have disparate effects on different segments of society. However, most prior research in this area has focused on the effect of early retirement on health. We already know something of the characteristics of those who retire early and those who work beyond SPA. For instance, in Britain, ill-health and disability are the most important reasons for early retirement. Those who work beyond SPA are more likely to be better educated, in good health and have a partner in paid work but they are also more likely to be self-employed, to work part-time and, among women, to be in low skill jobs. However, to our best knowledge, nobody has addressed the consequences for health and wellbeing of working up to or beyond SPA. We also know little about the life course trajectories that influence who works up to or beyond SPA; or how they shape the relationships between later life work and health or economic resources. There is also little understanding of the underlying biological mechanisms that might link paid work and physical and psychological health outcomes. Last, by defining how the relationship between SPA and health has changed over time, and across cohorts, we will be better placed to inform debate on the potential impact of future policy decisions. Understanding these issues is critical to the development of policy that minimizes how inequalities may be perpetuated through the lifecourse. Our interdisciplinary team will tackle these issues in projects that cover three major areas: i) a comprehensive assessment of the lifecourse determinants and consequences for health and wellbeing of working up to and beyond SPA; ii) an evaluation of whether (and how) these relationships have changed for different cohorts and over time; and iii) modelling of the financial consequences of working up to and beyond SPA for those with different lifecourse trajectories.

Design practices and methods, and professional designers, are increasingly visible in public policy processes in national, regional and local government as well as in broader policy ecosystems in particular public service design. The outcomes, consequences and implications of this development are as yet little discussed. In design research, and in political science, recent research has attempted to bridge this divide with nascent research communities in the form of special interest groups and conference panels. This 18-month network brings together these two academic constituencies in a systematic way to identify the tensions and resistances between the two domains, identify potential where capacities of design can be more effectively leveraged, and map out an agenda for future research and knowledge exchange. The network complements other initiatives in academia and practice by critically examining the concepts and methodologies at the intersection of design and political science, as well as identifying untapped potential for using design in public policy. By building capacity across and within these research communities, alongside practice, new understandings as well as new projects can be developed. This is relevant and timely as social and public policy issues require new forms of public administration practice, changes to institution design, ways of engaging with publics and forms of democratic debate. Over 31 people including established researchers, ECRs and PhD students, as well as practitioners working in government departments, think tanks, consultancies and civil society organisations, have expressed interest in being part of the network. Organised through 4 interactive workshops (two in London at UAL, two at Manchester, both blended to allow face to face and online participation), the network will also exist through threaded online discussion on digital platform Slack. Through invited provocations at three workshops with leading researchers and practitioners (with video and transcripts made available on a blog), alongside creative, participatory activities, the network will consolidate and articulate a shared understanding of the potential, consequences and implications for design in public policy processes, informed by research in several fields (design research, the humanities, political science and policy studies). A fourth workshop will allow the network to synthesise understanding of key debates and also to sketch out designs for future collaborative research projects. These insights will form the basis of a public report co-authored by the PI, CI and Steering Group and materials for a public blog to disseminate findings to academics and practitioners. Finally through two events, one aimed at the UK Civil Service co-organised with Policy Lab and Department of Work and Pensions, and one public event, co-organised with the Policy Institute at King's, key findings and directions for future research and knowledge exchange will be disseminated. The network organisers anticipate that members, including the steering group, will build on the outcomes to collaboratively craft new, cross-disciplinary research projects (e.g. for UKRI or Horizon Europe), as well as continuing dialogue through scholarly communities, as well as via fora such as Slack.

The UK is currently in the midst of sweeping changes to both state pension provision and private pension arrangements. Recent policy reforms include the introduction of the 'new state pension' from April 2016, further increases in the state pension age and the introduction of 'auto-enrolment' into workplace pensions. These changes are happening against a backdrop of continuing long-term trends, including a decline in the generosity of many employer-provided pensions and increasing life expectancies. These trends and policy reforms have significant implications for households' saving and retirement decisions. In very general terms, the environment is one in which accumulating resources to finance retirement is increasingly important, but the responsibility for ensuring such accumulation happens is shifting ever more to the individual as the state and employers take a step back. We propose a programme of research that will study the implications of this changing environment and recent policy reforms for household behaviour and well-being. Our two central sets of research questions are: 1) Are working-age households saving appropriately for retirement? What will be the likely standards of living in retirement of successive generations of pensioners? 2) What are the likely long-run impacts of recent reforms and other long run trends on household saving and retirement decisions? Different cohorts of individuals (those born in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s) have faced very different incentives to save privately for retirement (and to do so in different types of assets), and will face different incentives to retire as they approach what would traditionally have been the end of working life. This had led to considerable policy concern that while those recently retired have, on average, done so with relatively high levels of resources, those currently in working life are not saving enough for their retirement. We aim to add considerably to the evidence base available for policy makers by exploring what can be known now about the future retirement living standards of currently working age households. We will do this by using the best available data on the decisions that these cohorts have already made, taking into account their past earnings and the structure of state and private pensions that they face, to estimate their future behaviour. We will then consider how their likely retirement standards of living will compare to those enjoyed during working life and to absolute thresholds of poverty in order to assess the 'appropriateness' of the household saving. An important feature of our research will be to study how this differs across different cohorts, given the different incentives they have faced and will face in future. We will also analyse separately the impact of various changes to the pensions and savings environment - including specific policy reforms - on household saving and retirement behaviour, and consequently on households' resources. This will allow us to assess the impact of these changes on standards of living in retirement. The trends and policy changes whose effects we propose to consider are: the declining prevalence of some employer-provided pensions, increases in the state pension age, the introduction of the new state pension, changes in annuity prices, and the financial incentives to save encompassed in 'auto-enrolment'. Such analysis is of considerable importance for policy makers. Understanding the long-run impact of recent, extremely large policy reforms on households' behaviour and living standards is vital for any assessment of a policy's effectiveness at meeting its objectives. Furthermore, greater understanding of the impact of some long-running changes in the pensions and saving environment is needed to better understand which (if any) future policy reforms may be desirable.

Research context: Active labour market policies (ALMPs) are government interventions traditionally focused on moving unemployed people into work. As those ultimately in control of the employment opportunities participants are seeking to access, employers are fundamental to ALMP outcomes (Bredgaard; 2017; Sissons and Green, 2017). However, research and policy relating to ALMP has tended to ignore employers. Focusing on UK ALMP, as enacted through Universal Credit, this research will help to advance knowledge of this topic by focusing on employer perspectives of ALMP and the conditionality that underpins it for unemployed people and workers on a low income. The research will explore how ALMP is understood and experienced by UK employers, how it impacts on how businesses are run, and how employment services can work more effectively with employers, leading to better outcomes for individuals and the wider economy (McCollum, 2012). The UK's main vehicle for ALMP, and flagship policy of recent welfare reforms is Universal Credit (UC). UC is the new working age benefit for those who are either out of work or on a low income (DWP, 2010). Under UC, social security for unemployed people is conditional on claimants demonstrating work search and other work-related activities. This is underpinned by a 'Work First' approach, emphasising high volumes of applications and fast work re-entry. It also potentially involves the extension of conditionality to those in work, blurring the traditional distinction between social security claimants who are in and outside of the paid labour market (Dwyer and Wright, 2014). Aims and objectives The project has four main aims. Through qualitative semi-structured interviews with employers, policymakers and other key stakeholders, this research project will: 1. explore how UK ALMP is understood and experienced by employers 2. identify how ALMP impacts UK businesses, including how they recruit, retain and progress their staff (and explore differences between sectors) 3. explore how the impact of ALMP on employers varies in different low pay sectors 4. explore how the public employment service can work effectively with employers to lead to better employment outcomes for claimants To realise these aims, the project is underpinned by four related objectives: 1. To generate new qualitative data on how ALMP impacts on employers and firm behaviour through consultation with employers, policy makers and other key stakeholders 2. To expand scholarly understanding of ALMP and its impact, beyond a traditional supply side focus on unemployed claimants 3. To identify ways in which public employment services (i.e. Jobcentre Plus and other contracted providers) could work with employers to help Universal Credit claimants enter and progress in work 4. To inform policy development and debate relating to ALMP for both unemployed and working Universal Credit claimants Potential applications and benefits This research has been designed to have clear benefits for multiple stakeholders: policymakers in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will benefit through the insight it will provide into employer interactions with ALMP; employers will benefit as it will enable their voices to be heard on policy which impacts them and their staff; employer representative organisations will benefit through greater awareness of how UC impacts on the businesses they represent; employment and skills agencies, unions and other organisations supporting UC claimants will benefit from a greater awareness of how UC interacts with employment practices, which can help to shape their advice and support; Universal Credit claimants will benefit through more informed public debate and policy development which better reflects the realities of work, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of support for claimants; and academics will benefit through new insights and the creation of a new dataset.

This study attempts to answer the following questions: 1. How do things like truancy, coming from a less affluent background, family breakdown and a range of other factors that pupils experience at school; lead to poor educational and labour market (employment and earnings) outcomes? 2. Do we see different impacts (for instance on the likelihood of securing good wages) when similar students attend different post-16 educational institutions, such as Further Education, Sixth Form College or School Sixth Form? Does it make any difference to a young person's prospects if they achieve the same level of qualification in these different institutions; and do we see children from rich and poor backgrounds making very different decisions from age 16 and above? 3. How accurately are we able to predict the employment and earnings outcomes for different students, using all the information on their background, learning and achievement in schools and colleges? At its heart the project seeks to analyse and assess the educational and labour market pathways followed by the half of young people who do not pursue university level education, and therefore contributes to the government's social mobility agenda; emphasised by David Cameron as a key priority for government in his Oct 2015 conference speech. The research proposed here will be of key interest to government and the Social Mobility Commission charged by the government to address Britain's poor record on social mobility. When we talk of social mobility, we are interested in the extent to which children born to poorer families can make the journey to high paid jobs and professional careers. More generally, a lack of social mobility is a situation where being born to poverty, riches or somewhere in between, means that you are likely to find yourself in the same position as your parents, no matter how hard you try and whatever your talents. Unfortunately, the evidence over recent decades has been that there is less social mobility in the UK than in other similar countries. The administrative data we will use to carry out this study is routinely collected by the parts of government that collect taxes (HMRC), deal with unemployment support (DWP), are responsible for Further Education (BIS) and learning in schools (DfE). This is a very important and useful resource, as it has the potential to overcome some of the limitations we face when using surveys (not least that we observe all people in the relevant populations, not just a relatively small sample). However, it is a complicated process to link these datasets and a large part of this project will be taken up with this process of linking. As well as finding out what impact truancy has on a young person's performance at school, up to the age of 15 when they get their GCSE results (and results from other equivalent qualifications); we will try to find out if this truancy continues to have an impact even when they leave school. Consider another example: we will shed new light on the extent to which disadvantaged young people, with a good set of educational choices facing them at age 15, are seen to make 'bad' choices; when compared to their more advantaged peers, facing the same choice sets. Similarly, the study will shed light on the choices made by young people from age 16+ who are from more advantaged backgrounds, who we see facing a more limited set of educational choices at 15; and how these differ to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds facing the same limited choices.