This article examines the conceptual importance of integrating risk and intersectionality theory for the study of how risk and various forms of inequality intersect and are mutually constitutive. We argue that an intersectional perspective can advance risk research by incorporating more effectively the role of such social categories as gender and race into the analysis of 'risk' as an empirical phenomenon. In doing so, it articulates more clearly the connection between the social construction of risk with, on the one hand, the reproduction of new and complex social inequalities and, on the other, intersections of social class, gender, ethnicity, and other social categorizations. The article traces the intellectual division between risk and feminist-inspired intersectionality research, showing how these approaches can be aligned to study, for example, risk-based welfare and social policy. This case is used to illustrate how an intersectional perspective can reveal the ways in which new governance strategies create new divisions and reproduce existing forms of social inequality. The article concludes with a call for a new research agenda to integrate intersectional frameworks with 2 risk theory in order to provide a more nuanced analysis of the relationship between social inequality and risk. IntroductionFraming social problems in terms of risk has become a common strategy for managing complex social changes at national and international levels. As a consequence, the actions of social institutions that, for instance, deal with social challenges through welfare interventions or social inclusion initiatives are being transformed by the use of risk discourse and risk management practices. Thus, 'social problems', often associated with particular categories of 'vulnerable' people, are redefined, reframed, and-ultimately-managed as 'risks'.

Numerous programmes designed to encourage welfare recipients to move into work and off benefit have been evaluated in the United States. Many have randomly assigned potential participants into ‘experimental’ and ‘control’ groups to generate unbiased estimates of the effectiveness of the programmes. The results of the evaluations have been selectively influential in shaping policy developments on both sides of the Atlantic, but a thorough understanding of the diversity of experience has been lacking. Applying meta-analysis techniques to a specially constructed database of evaluations in over 50 US sites, this article reports on the first programme-level, systematic meta-evaluation of welfare-to-work programmes. The results confirm the superiority of approaches that prioritize immediate work over human-capital investment but reveal that caseload characteristics and local environment can be equally important as or even more important than programme design. The article concludes with a discussion of the potential and limitations of meta-evaluation.

Of welfare-to-work programs evaluated by random assignment, two stand out as having exceptionally large estimated effects: one in Riverside, California, and the other in Portland, Oregon. The authors use data from 24 evaluations and the tools of meta-analysis to examine why. The findings indicate that the apparently superior performance of these two programs in increasing the earnings of participants is only partly attributable to program design (for example, the type of services provided, the use of sanctions, and the quality of program administration). Differences in caseload characteristics and site characteristics are probably more important. However, Riverside and Portland's relatively large effects in reducing the percentage of participants on the AFDC rolls appear mainly attributable to the design of the programs run in these sites.

Worldwide, active aging policy calls for greater participation of senior citizens in the social, economic, and political realms. Despite emerging evidence of initiatives engaging senior citizens in social activities, little is known about the use of participatory approaches in the design and/or implementation of policies that matter to older citizens. This article identifies initiatives facilitating the civic participation of older people in policy-making in European Union member and associate states, drawing on a review of the literature, consultation of national policy experts, and exemplary case studies. Four main patterns of senior civic participation are identified: adopting consultative or co-decisional participatory approaches in policy design or policy implementation. The four are represented to varying degrees at different geographical levels (national, regional, local), with different actor configurations (appointed, elected/nominated, corporate representation), and with varying degree of institutionalization (temporary/permanent). Case studies illustrate approaches taken to enhance the quality and effectiveness of public services for senior citizens. Future research should strengthen this line of enquiry to cast further light on conditions facilitating the civic participation of senior citizens.

No abstract