English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

New Zealand and Australia have both adopted compulsory income management and an actuarially-based “social investment” approach since 2012, suggesting the two countries engaged in “policy transfer” and that their policy settings have converged over the past decade. Focusing on four of the six types of policy convergence identified by Hay [Hay, C. 2004. “Common Trajectories, Variable Paces, Divergent Outcomes? Models of European Capitalism Under Conditions of Complex Economic Interdependence.” Review of International Political Economy 11 (2): 231–262.] typology, we tease out differing levels of input, policy, paradigm and legitimatory rhetoric convergence and divergence between these policies. Our findings challenge initial assumptions that policy in the two countries became more similar after 2012 and highlight the need for multi-dimensional analyses examining varied types of convergence across different countries, policies  and  timeframes.

The complexity of convergence: a multi-dimensional analysis of compulsory income management and social investment in New Zealand and Australia