Despite the significant financial and non-financial costs of household flooding, and the availability of products that can reduce the risk or impact of flooding, relatively few consumers choose to adopt these products. To help explain this, we combine the existing theoretical literature with evidence from 20 one-to-one discussions and three workshops with key stakeholders, as well as five round tables, to draw practical evidence of actual responses to flood risk. This analysis leads us to propose an extension to Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), which more accurately captures the decision-making process of consumers by highlighting the role of ‘ownership appraisal’. We then assess the extent to which behavioral biases impact on this revised framework. By highlighting the interaction with an augmented model of PMT and behavioral biases, the paper sheds light on potential reasons behind the fact that consumers are unlikely to adopt property-level flood resilience measures and identifies strategies to increase flood protection. The Augmented PMT suggests that policymakers might focus on increasing the Ownership Appraisal element, both directly and by targeting the creation of more supportive social norms. The work presented here opens up a wide range of areas for future research in the field.

This article examines variation in early childhood education and care (ECEC) expansion in four ‘latecomer’ reformers: Germany, England, South Korea and Japan. Taking a comparative approach through an analysis of policy documents, it focuses on the role of ideas as coalition magnets in explaining the more extensive and sustained policy shifts in Germany and Korea, in contrast to the more limited and fragmented reforms in England and Japan. As the comparative literature struggles to explain variation in ECEC expansion, this focus on ideas provides a significant contribution, highlighting why ECEC reform became supported by a broad cross-class coalition in Germany and Korea but not in England or Japan. The theoretical contribution argues that coalition magnets are formed when the polysemic potential of a policy is drawn out by key actors strategically linking it to several problem definitions, which can appeal to diverse political actors and forge lasting consensus for reform.

This paper explores the relationship between labour market dualization, insecurity and low fertility, through a case study of South Korea, an extreme case of ultra-low fertility where the total fertility rate fell to 0.84 in 2020. It is argued that the long-term nature of the insecurity associated with dualization, as well as its impact on people’s perceptions of present and future insecurity, mark dualization out as a particular phenomenon whose impact on fertility current demographic approaches struggle to fully understand. Rather than restricting the focus to the education-employment transition, we show how permanent insecurity in highly dualized labour markets depresses fertility.

How families balance employment and the care of young children has become a focus of dynamic policy change in many high-income countries since the 1990s. While there has been a broad shift across the OECD away from male-breadwinner model work-family policy regimes, there is much variation in the extent to which policies targeted at fathers have been part of these changes. Examining this variation, this article compares two cases which both represent ‘late path shifters’ away from the male-breadwinner family model, yet whose trajectory in terms of ‘father politics’ are very different: Germany, which has introduced well-remunerated, non-transferable periods of leave for fathers, and the UK, where leave policy has remained overwhelmingly focused on mothers. This article seeks to explain these different trajectories through an analysis of the political role of ideas in the two processes of reform. Drawing on documentary analysis and interviews with policymakers, it argues that a substantial shift in ideas about the role of fathers underpinned the reforms in Germany, while no such shift took place in the UK. This difference is explained with reference to political conditions, which created similar but different windows of opportunity for change, and the impact of existing policy legacies.