Privatizing Social Services in the U.S.A.

Governmental and private sector social services organizations have traditionally shared important roles for provision and delivery of social services in the United States. Over the past fifty years, however, a predominant position has developed for the public sector, especially through federal funding for social service programmes. Recent challenges to the prevailing role of public sector dominance have been expressed by the proponents for privatization at a time when decreasing federal funds are made available for social service programmes. The analysis presented here examines the potential and problems associated with the privatization strategies offered through load shedding, limited-government arrangements, fee charging and competition. As a macro level approach for a comprehensive system of social service provision and delivery, these privatization strategies raise more questions than immediate solutions. A more optimistic view is taken if privatization leads to a more meaningful balance with increased co-operation between public and private social welfare auspices.     

Office of Economic Opportunity: U.S.A.

The Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), was created at the height of Lyndon Johnson's “Great Society” anti-poverty programmes. It represented a degree of radical activism that reached its culmination in the 89th Congress (1965-66) and indeed has never been repeated: that Congress was perhaps the only genuinely left-liberal one this century (outside the New Deal era, at any rate). The OEO's social policies were tied to a particular theory of public and social administration: that a “rival” federal agency to the existing ones (Health, Education and Welfare, now Health and Human Services; Housing, and Urban Development, et al) could escape their conservative norms. Both at the federal level and in the “field” agencies it spanned to implement its programmes, the new approach to social administration was to by-pass traditional channels. This short, illustrative rather than definitive article, examines how such an approach was undermined by both the U.S. political structure and by traditional “politics as usual”. It is but a snapshot of the era. However, it hints at the general problems that such approaches to “by-passing” traditional agencies and attempting to develop a new autonomy in social reform may have in many countries, especially those with decentralized political structures. For, while decentralized politics provides opportunities as well as barriers to reformers seeking to by-pass traditional elites (which themselves tend to be decentralized, mirroring political structures), it is suggested here that the balance sheet will tend to be negative from the viewpoint of reformist social administration.     

最是乡土润奇葩——简记鞍山泰和膨润土有限公司

车沿着乡间小路行驶,突然眼前一亮,一座新型的厂区出现在视野中,令人怀疑到了哪个新兴开发区.其实,这就是鞍山泰和膨润土有限公司.