Care: A Critical Review of Theory,Policy and Practice

‘Care’ is a source of critical tension in current social theory, and the policy and practice implications of that tension are evidenced in its current prominence on the political agenda of developed welfare states. This article critically appraises current developments in the theory, policy and practice of care, drawing on interdisciplinary developments in political theory, sociology and social policy. Developing feminist and disability‐rights theories, it explores a critical synthesis of conflicting normative and theoretical positions regarding the giving and receiving of care, and of the ethics and justice of care. It examines case studies of current comparative policy developments across a range of different welfare regimes, including the marketization/commodification and de/re‐familiaization of care, exploring ideological and normative trends in the design of contemporary policies. It discusses the impact of theory and policy on the practice of care, looking particularly at the issue of long‐term care for disabled and older adults. Finally, the authors argue for the development of a citizenship‐based approach to care that decouples it from individualistic and paternalistic paradigms that disempower those who give and receive care.     

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.     

Social Politics and Policy in an Era of Globalization: Critical Reflections

This paper critically examines the ways in which social policy is said to be affected by globalization. The prevailing approach has been framed in terms of the impact of "external" economic forces on national welfare states. Globalization is said to undermine the economic and political conditions on which welfare states were built, erode national policy autonomy and force the marketization and residualization of welfare states. These predictions are found wanting on the grounds that they share many of the assumptions, and therefore also the faults, of "strong" globalization theory. A more nuanced account of the way in which social politics and social policy are affected by globalization is needed and a global governance perspective is outlined. This, it is argued, better captures the political and institutional environment in which social policy is formulated and implemented. It also recognizes the importance of "local" factors and their interaction with global ones in shaping political responses, including social policy, to globalization. The discussion highlights the enduring power of "local" forces—those which are at the level of and internal to states—and of politics and ideology in shaping the process of globalization and ultimately its implications for welfare states and social policies.     

The Emperor's new clothes: South Africa's attempted transition to developmental social welfare and social work

This article critically interrogates the depth and quality of change of post‐apartheid welfare policy and social work practice towards a social development paradigm against the background of inequality and poverty in South Africa. It asks several questions: what kind of welfare system has the current welfare dispensation created? How far has it moved from a residual, ameliorative system to an institutional developmental system, in keeping with the developmental welfare paradigm? To what extent can residual provisions be transformed into developmental processes? What conditions are necessary for this to happen? The answers to questions such as these provide the basis for assessing South Africa's new developmental processes. The article highlights the fundamental contradictions in social development policy imperatives, which call for a marriage of economic and social considerations, and the internal contradictions across and within various welfare policies. Further, it argues that the government does not have the political will to bear the costs of the substantive change that the move towards developmental social work requires, choosing instead limited, individually targeted and ameliorative measures, such as increased social security spending. Thus, it suggests that ideological critique, consciousness raising and participation in public policy debates remain crucial for those who seek long‐term solutions to inequality and poverty in South Africa.     

Public Opinion against Markets? Attitudes towards Market Distribution of Social Services – A Comparison of 17 Countries

This article studies how citizens view the appropriateness of market criteria for allocating services commonly associated with social citizenship rights and welfare state responsibility. The article focuses specifically on a potential role for the market in the provision of social services. The relationship between welfare policy institutions, socio‐economic class and attitudes is explored by comparing attitudes across 17 countries of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, using multilevel modelling and data from the 2009 International Social Survey Programme. Results show that public support for market distribution of services is relatively weak in most countries, a result suggesting that public opinion is unlikely to pose a driving force within ongoing processes of welfare marketization. Still, attitudes are found to vary a lot across countries in tandem with between‐country variation in welfare policy design. First, aggregate public support for market distribution of services is stronger in countries with more private spending on services. Second, class differences in attitudes are larger in countries with more extensive state‐led delivery of services. Together, these results point to the operation of normative feedback‐effects flowing from existing welfare policy arrangements. The theoretical arguments and the empirical results presented in this article suggest that future research exploring the relationship between welfare policy and public opinion from a country‐comparative perspective is well advised to place greater focus on the market institutions that, to varying extents in different countries, act as complements to the state in the administration of social welfare.     

Rise of the Regulatory Welfare State? Social Regulation in Utilities in Israel

This article explores the relation between economic liberalization, regulation and welfare. It asks how the state regulates, delays or prevents service disconnection due to debt and arrears, and what this kind of policy implies regarding the use of regulation as a form of social policy. This is done through a comparative study of the electricity and water sectors in Israel after liberalization. It finds that after initial economic reform, both sectors saw a growth in regulation intended to compensate for the social effects of reform, in what may be termed the ‘regulatory welfare state’. However, this form of social protection has been residual and incoherent. The article argues that trying to separate economic reform from its social consequences is unrealistic and may lead to adverse social and economic results. Second, findings raise concerns regarding the potential of the regulatory welfare state to deliver effective and fair social policy.     

The welfare state as an institutional process

The main objective of this paper is to argue that the origins and formation of the welfare state should be reconsidered as an institutional process embedded in dialectical relations between given historical contingencies and institutional adaptations in response to welfare demands. Such relational processes can be categorized by the three isomorphic convergences of institutional adaptations to the welfare demands: national emergencies, economic challenges and political transitions. Existing accounts for the emergence of the welfare state – universalism, selectivity, and Marxism – are bracketed under a single heading of social control theory for two reasons: first, those three explanations commonly err in believing that an ideological intent is given as predetermined before actual analyses of social policy-making, thereby neglecting the process of institutional reforms; and second, the underlying implication of all three accounts ends in a common target of social policy – how to control welfare demands, and safeguard social stability. By comparing institutional adaptations with social control theory, the paper aims to explain and emphasize the methodological utilities and practical applicability of the institutional process approach in the studies of welfare development.     

Introduction: social policy, economic growth and developmental welfare

Although the notion of developmental welfare is not new, it is only in recent times that its central premises have again attracted attention in social policy circles. Since developmental welfare offers an opportunity to challenge the neo-liberal claim that social expenditures harm the economy, and that economic development requires retrenchments in state welfare, more information about this approach is needed. This article discusses the developmental welfare approach with reference to neo-liberalism's current hegemonic influence on social policy. It traces the historical evolution of developmental welfare, discusses its theoretical implications and outlines its practical proposals.     

The reform of the developmental welfare state in East Asia

This article examines social policy reforms in East Asia and whether the welfare states in the region became more inclusive in terms of social protection while maintaining their developmental credentials. It draws on findings from the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) project on social policy in East Asia, covering China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, Japan, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan Province of China, and Thailand. It shows that East Asian economies responded differently to the crisis in terms of welfare reform. While Singapore and Hong Kong maintained the basic structure of the selective developmental welfare state, Korea, Taiwan, and, to a lesser extent, Thailand implemented social policy reforms toward a more inclusive one. Despite such different responses, policy changes are explained by the proposition of the developmental welfare state: the instrumentality of social policy for economic development and realization of policy changes through democratization (or the lack of it).     

Achievements,experiences and challenges: The 30-year development of social policy in China

ABSTRACT

This paper provides a brief summary of China’s social policy in the last three decades by dividing it into two significant stages. It analyses the different policy orientations and concrete measurements in the two stages. According to the author, the changes and development of China’s social policy in the last three decades were, to a large extent, responses to the economic transition and the current socio-economic conditions. In the first stage, China’s social policy had to keep a low social welfare level to support the labour-intensive and foreign-trade oriented economic model in the 1990s. In the second stage, it had turned more to solve serious social problems and responded to the new economic and social challenges. After the fast development of almost two decades, China’s social policy is still facing big challenges. Several important issues for further social policy development are discussed in this paper.     

The greying of the baby boom in the United States: framing the policy debate

Issues surrounding the retirement of the large post-World War II "baby boom" generation in the United States are often framed either in terms of impending intergenerational crisis or as an event to which the United States can gradually adjust. This paper examines these two perspectives as they compete to define US social security policy. It suggests that the intergenerational crisis perspective functions primarily as an ideological argument and strategy for de-structuring social welfare policy. In contrast, the gradual adjustment perspective provides a stronger basis for planning social security and other policy responses to the ageing of the baby boom. However, it is not informed by a clear social vision and has not, as yet, responded sufficiently to the potential divisiveness which may accompany changing demography. Also, to date, relatively little attention has been paid to the diverse social and economic circumstances of baby boomers and the implications of this diversity for retirement planning.     

The state of the German social insurance state: Reform and resilience

At the core of the German system of welfare provision stand social insurance schemes whose central role contributes to Germany being labelled a social insurance state. In recent decades, Germany has been experiencing major social policy reforms that are often evaluated as paradigm changes. These changes have been reflected in analyses that sometimes even questioned common classifications of the German welfare state. The article sheds light on recent developments that have affected the German system of social insurance. It focuses on four aspects of social insurance: benefits, financing, governance, and coverage. Although confirming many earlier analyses of reforms in detail and sharing assessments of changes such as retrenchment and marketization, the article nevertheless stresses that social insurance remains structurally intact and that the work–welfare nexus underlying welfare provision has been reinterpreted but not surrendered.     

The Korean welfare state: a paradox of expansion in an era of globalisation and economic crisis

When the Asian financial crisis took a heavy toll on Korea in the late 1990s, policy makers responded by extending welfare policy. For many analysts, this was a paradoxical move, marking a fundamental reconfiguration of the social policy system. This article contests that interpretation. It examines the changes made to Korean social policy in recent years, and considers their impact on the Korean welfare state. It notes both that welfare extensions have been comparatively limited, and that they have often formed part of wider attempts to boost labour market flexibility. It thus concludes that limited expansion of the Korean welfare state is chiefly an attempt to bolster industrial competitiveness and economic growth. For now, Korea retains the productivist social policy orientation that has long characterised it. It also concedes, however, that in the future underlying social change, notably a rapidly ageing population, may prompt policy makers to make significant changes to the Korean welfare state.     

How Social is Social Policy? Fiscal and Market Discourse in North American Welfare States

Long regarded as a 'laggard' among welfare states in advanced industrial countries, the USA may be emerging as a 'leader' in the reformation of social programmes and the relationship between government, the market economy, and civil society. The dissemination and impact of this new orthodoxy is realized, in large part, through discursive practices. Fiscalization and marketization are two processes central to this growing influence of American social policy. Fiscal and market discourse, while not new, have increased in acceptance and influence, and are changing the welfare state from within by altering perceptions of issues, vocabularies used and programme reforms adopted.     

The Greens and Social Policy: Movements,Politics and Practice?

The central aim of this paper is to show how different types of green movement respond to questions of social policy. An important factor in this is a difference in attitudes to the state between more anarchistic greens and those greens that are prepared to accept a permanent and/or strategic role for the state. The paper is divided into two parts. In part one, after defning the green movement, it outlines how different green social movements from local groups, direct action protestors, established environmental groups and green political parties, have developed analyses, responses and alternatives to social policy issues. Part two of the paper looks at some of the ideological/theoretical debates within green politics with regard to social policy, with particular regard to the role of the state. It goes on to look at some of the ways in which European green parties have viewed social policy, and at proposals they have advanced for moving the aim of social policy from "welfare" to "well-being". It concludes with suggesting that the "post-materialist" characterization of green politics is very wide of the mark in terms of the range of analyses and policy alternatives greens have put forward, from health, education and drugs to transport. The central and long-standing green concern with lessening socioeconomic inequalities (but without relying on indiscriminate and unsustainable "economic growth") means that in terms of social policy, green politics can be seen as an "environmentalism of the poor", concerned with "materialist" issues.     

A social welfare perspective of market‐oriented social enterprises

The article analyses market‐oriented social enterprises from a social welfare perspective, within the context of the innate conflict between business and welfare orientations. After defining the concept of market‐oriented social enterprises and presenting some successful examples on such entities that employ different marginalised populations, particularly people with disabilities, the article asks three interrelated questions: (i) What policy environment is needed to encourage the development of social enterprises? (ii) Given the innate tension between the social and economic objectives in social enterprises, what structural principles are needed to enable them to meet those dual objectives? Lastly, (iii) What intervention modalities are best suited to help individual participants in those frameworks? Answers to these questions are discussed within conceptual frameworks from the worlds of welfare and business that jointly provide a base for a social welfare rationale for market‐oriented social enterprises.     

Beyond the Nation State: Social Policy in an Age of Globalization

The paper proceeds from the assumption that globalization has placed significant constraints on the autonomy of nation states in the making of social policy. It argues that the post-World War II welfare state represented a social system highly successful in combining economic efficiency and dynamism with equity and solidarity. This historic achievement at the nation-state level is being undermined by economic globalization. It is both necessary and feasible to recreate and institutionalize this mixed system globally. The paper argues that the concept of social rights, which has served as the basic underpinning of the welfare state, has many weaknesses—logical as well as empirical. While the principles of civil and political rights are being consolidated and extended worldwide the principle of social rights is in decay. The paper presents the case for replacing social rights by social standards as the major concept for buttressing systems of social protection. To be applicable globally a social standard must be conceptualized as a level of social development which corresponds to an appropriate level of economic development. Finally, the paper considers the problems and prospects of developing social standards transnationally. It reviews, briefly, the nature and extent of transnational social policy-making by inter-governmental organizations and concludes that despite difficulties of global action advances towards global social standards remain possible.     

Who Benefits the Most? The Unequal Allocation of Transfers in the Israeli Welfare State

Objective . This article critically examines contradictions within the Israeli welfare system, and asks how welfare transfers affect poverty for different social groups. Methods . Using data from Israel's 1996 Income Survey conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics, the analysis focuses on households with working-age heads, and compares poverty rates, before and after transfers among three groups: (1) recent immigrants; (2) Arabs; and (3) ultra-orthodox Jews ( Haredim ), distinguishing between couple- and female-headed households. Results . The results show that social welfare policy is more effective in aiding recent immigrants, who are entitled to special benefits, than aiding Arabs. The findings also show that transfers have a stronger effect in reducing poverty among female-headed families than among couple-headed families, thus reducing the gap between these two types of households. Conclusions . Israeli welfare policy reduces poverty, but this effect differs substantially by social group. While formally Israel is considered a universalistic welfare state, for historical and ideological reasons certain social groups, such as Jewish immigrants, have been favored and granted extra benefits, while others, such as Arabs, were neglected.