Privatisation and Welfare Services

This paper traces some of the persistent criticisms which have attended welfare provision in Australia and many other western industrialised nations over the past twenty years. Clearly, the most concerted attacks on the welfare system have come from the radical Right, who are becoming more adept at manipulating and hijacking the language and sentiments of supporters of welfare. The paper argues that the welfare crisis debate, of which privatisation has become an important component, has deceptively seized upon a particular, and simplistic, interpretation of economics and the economy of welfare, as a means of unfurling a broader ideological position on social and economic policy. The rhetoric of the ‘rational’ Right can have no legitimate place in the restructuring and improvement of welfare provision in Australia. It is essential to the continued development of the welfare system, that the ‘backlash’ proposals of the Right be comprehensively rejected, and exposed for their destructive capacity. Efforts to reverse the ideological shift created by the ‘New Right’, need to consciously reclaim and reinstate concepts of social justice and equity on the social policy agenda.     

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR SOCIAL SERVICES

This article raises the question about whether or not our social services programs are taking new directions or whether there is much ado about nothing. Demographic data and their social implications are presented as background for the discussion. While rhetoric may have changed, the general impression is that we are walking in an Heraclitian stream in which there a both sameness and change.     

Productive welfare: Korea's third way?

How can the various pressures of economic globalisation and changes in the established welfare systems of the industrialised nations inform the development of the Korean welfare state? As the twenty‐first century dawns, Korea is confronted with a serious dilemma: How to adapt to globalisation and survive under worldwide competition and at the same time construct an effective egalitarian welfare state? The objective of this paper is to explore the future directions for the Korean social welfare system as it adjusts to economic globalisation. As it seeks a course between the social democratic welfare state model and the rising tide of the neo‐liberal welfare state, we pose the question: Is there a ‘third way’ for Korea? In trying to discern where the Korean welfare state is headed, it may be helpful to understand where it has come from and how it compares with the established welfare states in the industrialised nations.     

Third Way Social Governance: Where is the State?

The ‘Third Way’ politics of Blair's New Labour government of the United Kingdom has popularised a number of policy reforms centred on a supposedly new discourse of ‘devolution’, ‘inclusion’, ‘partnerships’ and ‘community’. These notions reflect a re‐emergence of the ideas and values of civil society, participation and localism. Key drivers of this discourse are: new conceptions of citizenship; a retreat from the social state to a politics of community; and a questioning of both ‘big‐state’ interventionist and competitive market approaches to public policy. These trends have resonance in the Australian context. The welfare reform agenda of the Australian Commonwealth government together with community building and engagement initiatives of State governments have been sites for these policy directions. Much of the debate surrounding these policies excludes or minimises the fundamental role of an active state by focusing on an uncritical conception of community. Drawing on the notion of network governance, an alternative framework for re‐conceptualising state‐community relations and delivering improved community outcomes is posited. The paper concludes by suggesting possible social governance methodologies for actioning this framework.     

ECONOMIC RATIONALISM VERSUS THE COMMUNITY: REFLECTIONS ON SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND STATE CAPACITY

In the context of calls for a ‘third way’ which proposes the abandonment of many of the social democratic and statist commitments of the postwar era, this paper reviews both the responsibilities accepted by peak bodies such as ACOSS and those that ought to be retained by government. It is sceptical of claims that social policy debates in Australia lead to the conclusion that welfare state development here has been satisfactory. Social democratic objectives (derived from intellectual contributions in the 1940s and 1950s as well as from the comparative political economy of the 1980s and 1990s) emphasize more decommodified provision of services than can be readily admitted in Australia. If the demand for social welfare and social policy continues to increase to the extent suggested by past and present circumstances, serious implications emerge for both public and private providers.     

THE IMAGINED COMMUNITY OF ACCESS AND EQUITY

Access and Equity programs are framed within the discourse of citizenship and organised around the notion of individual rights. This marks a shift in orientation away from the individual liberation strategies of the 1960s and 1970s, which utilised the notion of ‘community’ as the major site of struggle. Nevertheless, Access and Equity programs must engage with the multiple and contradictory meanings that were infused into the notion of community during these earlier struggles. They must also engage with the ‘communities’ that were politically constituted during this era and utilise the community-based services that are now a fundamental part of the welfare system. It is argued that governments are able to utilise this legacy to resolve the contradictions inherent in Access and Equity programs, in particular the tension between ‘sameness’ and ‘difference’, universal citizenship and substantive equality. As this tension become more acute with government stringency measures, the limitations of reform strategies based on the notion of citizenship become more apparent.     

THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF THE NEW ECONOMY

The concept of the ‘new economy’, though increasingly used by the media, policy makers and scholars, remains elusive. Two main definitions (the popular and specialised) may be identified; and the dimensions of the ensuing debate clarified in terms of three key questions: Is there is something qualitatively different about recent trends in the economy? What are the main economic consequences said to result from this new economy? What are the main social consequences? Of particular importance for social policy is that most models of the new economy suggest that it has led to an increase in inequality and social exclusion for those not positioned to take advantage of its supposed benefits. With most discussion focussed on a narrow use of the term — to do with communications technology — greater attention should be given to a broader definition which examines its consequences for the disadvantaged.     

Qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences: On whose philosophical terms?

Over the past decade, an academic debate has developed surrounding qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences, and has been characterised as one between supporters and opponents of this movement. We reframe the debate by suggesting that so‐called ‘opponents’ are not resistant to the principle of data preservation and sharing, but ambivalent about how this principle is being put into practice. Specifically, qualitative researchers are uneasy about the foundational assumptions underpinning current data preservation and sharing policies and practices. Efforts to address these concerns argue that the inclusion of the ‘contexts’ of data generation, preservation and reuse will adequately resolve the epistemological concerns held by the qualitative research community. However, these ‘solutions’ reproduce foundational assumptions by treating ‘context’ as ontologically separate from, rather than constitutive of, data. The future of qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences is dependent on shedding its implicit unitary foundational model of qualitative research, and embracing ‘epistemic pluralism’ and the diversity of philosophical perspectives representing the qualitative researcher community.     

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF SATANISM: UNDERSTANDING AN INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL PROBLEM

The ‘satanism scare’ is a significant collective phenomenon which started gaining attention a decade or so ago in America, but has now spread to a number of Western countries. This article adopts a social constructionist perspective to analyse various structural factors and movements which have come together to give rise to the satanism scare as an international social problem. Special attention is paid to efforts of American anti-satanist ‘missionaries’ in the spread of the satanism scare to other countries, including Australia and New Zealand. A new typology of types of ‘objectivists’ - people who to varying degrees accept and promote the reality of Satan and satanism - is used as an analytic device in the presentation.     

POVERTY RESEARCH AND SOCIAL POLICY

The present approach to welfare reform, as embodied in the Final Report of the Reference Croup on Welfare Reform (2000), relies heavily on the rhetoric of ‘mutual obligation’ and ‘welfare dependency’ while placing Utile emphasis on original research and relevant data that might inform and support its reform agenda. In marked contrast are the research‐driven policy processes aimed at the alleviation of child poverty that took place during the Hawke‐Keating government in the late 1980s, in this paper we illustrate the value of research in relation to two government strategies, the Family Allowance Supplement (FAS) and the Child Support Scheme (CSS), that were instrumental in bringing a significant number of children out of poverty. We suggest that any commitment to further the reduction of child poverty requires resources for ongoing research programs.     

Housing and the Social Exclusion Agenda in England

In the period immediately following its election in 1997 the current Labour government in the UK declared a commitment to ‘combating social exclusion’ to be at the core of the domestic policy agenda. The interpretation of the term ‘social exclusion’ has been the source of extensive debate. This paper focuses on one aspect of the current debate, exploring the relationship between housing and social exclusion, both in theory and in contemporary central government policy in England. I argue that theoretical imprecision is a very real issue, not least because it allows policy makers to refer to rather vague causal mechanisms or social processes to justify actions and interventions. I identify some of the areas that require further exploration and theoretical development if we are to have a rigorous understanding of the concept of social exclusion and its link to housing. Most fundamentally, I suggest that the question of whether the concept of ‘social exclusion’ contributes anything valuable to our ability to understand social disadvantage needs to be addressed directly.     

‘We the People’ versus ‘We the Heads of States’: the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union

The Eurozone crisis has rekindled the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union (EU). In this paper, the debate is reconsidered by contrasting the modus vivendi of ‘We the People’ in the USA with the modus vivendi of ‘We the Heads of States’ in the EU. It is demonstrated that many of the solutions to the alleged democratic deficit focus on how more voice can be given to ‘We the People’ on the input side, but that this goes against the functional logic of the EU system, thereby undermining its ability to govern. Instead, we argue that more attention should be given to how to increase output legitimacy, and a number of proposals are put forward. Such a reshuffling of the analytical focus is the best way forward to escape the current impasse in the debate on how to ‘fix’ democracy in the EU.     

Redefining the 'Rural Question': The New 'Politics of the Rural' and Social Policy

Politics in the countryside has undergone a significant shift in emphasis in recent decades, which may be characterized as a transition from ‘rural politics’ to ‘a politics of the rural’. Whereas ‘rural politics’ refers broadly to politics located in rural space, or relating to ‘rural issues’, the ‘politics of the rural’ is defined by the centrality of the meaning and regulation of rurality itself as the primary focus of conflict and debate. However, far from marginalizing social issues – as early work on the new rural conflicts by Mormont implied – the paper argues that the new politics of the rural has liberated rural social policy from the shadow of agricultural policy, providing a new language and context through which rural social issues can be placed on the political agenda. Three examples of this are discussed, drawing on illustrations from Britain, Australia, New Zealand and North America – conflicts over the rationalization of public and commercial services in rural communities; campaigns around the closure of rural schools and their symbolic place at the heart of rural communities; and issues of difference and discrimination in the countryside, including responses to travellers and asylum‐seekers.     

TRIPARTISM AND THE SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES INDUSTRY: A CASE STUDY

In this article I discuss the consequences of tripartism for the definition of the social and community services industry. Data pertain to Western Australia, and concern the effect of tripartism on the representativeness of the industry training council for social and community services in Western Australia.     

From Gift Relationships to Quasi-markets: An Odyssey along the Policy Paths of Altruism and Egoism

Nearly forty years ago, the publication of ‘The Price of Blood’ (1968) and ‘The Gift Relationship’ (1970) added a new dimension of ideological conflict to the debate about the values, ends and means of social policy. The questions that Richard Titmuss posed in ‘The Gift Relationship’ are still discussed in current debates about the respective merits of unitary and pluralist models of welfare, the egoistic and altruistic motives that underpin them, and the rights and responsibilities intrinsic to the status of citizenship. The ways in which the content and focus of these debates have changed over the past forty years are here reviewed, taking Titmuss's ‘The Gift Relationship’, my own contributions in ‘Social Theory and Social Policy’ (1971) and ‘The Idea of Welfare’ (1979), and Julian Le Grand's ‘Motivation, Agency and Public Policy’ (2003) as the temporal and salient points of reference. A brief introduction describes how the academic debate became sharply polarized in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and how a key decision about the future development of this journal was taken at the same time.     

Materialism, Agnosticism and God

The longstanding philosophical debate between idealism and materialism has recently entered the ontological terrain of critical realism (CR) and dialectical critical realism (DCR). This has been initiated by Roy Bhaskar’s most recent book, From East to West, which attempts an ambitious synthesis of philosophy, social theory and theology. On the one hand, Bhaskar’s attempt to root his philosophy and social theory in a ‘realist theory of God’ has found an echo within the CR and DCR research camp, some of whose members would urge us to take seriously the possibility of a ‘religious sociology’. On the other hand, Bhaskar’s abrupt ‘idealist turn’ has left many critical realists flabbergasted and horrified, particularly those working at the interface between realist philosophy and Marxist social science, especially since Bhaskar’s new philosophical trajec‐tory is radically at odds with the ‘synchronic emergent powers materialism’ outlined in his The Possibility of Naturalism. In response to this ‘split’ within the CR and DCR camp, the spectre of ‘realist agnosticism’ has been raised and defended by Mervyn Hartwig in this journal. Since neither science nor philosophy can settle the issue of what kind of stuff constitutes ‘rock bottom reality’, it is rational to be agnostic on the ‘ultimate question’, to deny positively affirming the claims of either one side or the other. Now this is the move that is resisted in this paper. My argument is that ontolog‐ical idealism is disputable on a number of grounds‐philosophical, scientific, ethical and political. In particular, I argue that objective idealism is unsupported by rational knowledge, is riddled with conceptual and logical defects, is contrary to the logic of scientific discovery, and is an obstacle to eudaimonia (human emancipation). Further, since realist agnosticism rests its case on the myth of infallible knowledge, and obviously stands or falls with the defensibility or other‐wise of objective idealism, this gives us ‘good enough’ reasons for accepting a thoroughgoing materialism as the ontological foundation of social theory.     

Explaining Social exclusion: Towards Social Inclusion for Indigenous Australians

Current policy often focuses on ‘Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage’ by simultaneously addressing multiple deficits that many Indigenous people experience relative to other Australians. International literature often frames such issues in terms of the contested concepts of social exclusion and social inclusion. This paper attempts to analyse what Indigenous social inclusion might look like in a plural society such as Australia. In addition to contextualising Australian policy in broader debates, this paper also briefly introduces several relevant theories of justice, diversity and Indigenous rights to provide a theoretical framework for conceptualising social inclusion. The article concludes with some reflections on some practical suggestions to move the debate forward. In principle, enhancing Indigenous social and political participation in policy design should both increase inclusion and reduce disadvantage by enhancing the effectiveness of programs that have a substantial Indigenous client base.     

Novel biotechnologies for eradicating wasps: seeking Māori studies students’ perspectives with Q method

Aligned with the New Zealand government’s ‘Predator-Free 2050’ target for Aotearoa New Zealand, National Science Challenge: Our Biological Heritage supports research into five distinct ‘novel biotechnological controls’ of exotic wasps. A framing question within this project is which controls are considered ‘socially acceptable’ and thus suitable for further development to control and potentially eradicate introduced wasps? How can the public answer this question without first engaging with complex technologies? Can they develop and express an informed view that still reflects their ‘gut’ reactions and unique positions? To model and explore the views of an ‘informed public’, university students in Māori studies engaged in reflection, writing and mapping activities; choice and ranking exercises; Q Method; and focus group interviews. Amongst the interviewees, Q Method analysis distinguished three ‘factors’, describing unique viewpoints: those who see the potential of biotechnologies, those who are in doubt about them and those in a position of trust in scientists. Overall, the group see potential in new biotechnologies for wasps but are wary of political, economic and social decision-making mechanisms.     

Rethinking social work ethics: what is the real question? Responding to Stephen Webb's ‘Against difference and diversity in social work’

Jose J. Rethinking social work ethics: what is the real question? Responding to Stephen Webb's ‘Against difference and diversity in social work’ Int J Soc Welfare 2010: 19: 246–252 © 2009 The Author(s), Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. In his recent article, Stephen Webb argued that the real question for social work ethics concerns ‘recognising the Same and of restoring the principles of equality and social justice’. This argument also included raising questions about what should be considered an appropriate philosophical basis for progressive social work ethics. In his view, social work's emancipatory potential has been blunted by overstated and philosophically ill‐informed human rights claims about difference and diversity. He suggested that French philosopher Alain Badiou offers social workers a ‘set of conceptual devices for rethinking social work ethics’. I argue that pressing his points into Badiou's philosophical mould is unlikely to lead to a progressive social work practice, let alone solve the issues identified by Webb. Badiou's philosophical pronouncements about ethics are of questionable value and offer little or no assistance to social workers seeking to establish an ethical grounding for their professional practice.