Desperately seeking fusion: on 'joined-up thinking', 'holistic practice' and the new economy of welfare professional power

This paper argues that social welfare research on joined-up thinking is underpinned by two theses. The 'systemic move' thesis suggests that joined-up thinking is needed to fill gaps in welfare service provision arising from a lack of interorganizational co-ordination. The 'epistemological move' thesis advises that joined-up thinking is needed to overcome deficiencies in the institutional division and distribution of welfare knowledge. Both theses macro-systematize blame for previous social welfare failures, and both are teleological because they present joined-up thinking as a progressive solution that results in a more effective (and thus less fallible) welfare system. In this paper, I argue thatjoined-up thinking can also create a new economy of welfare professional power. First, I show how some versions of 'joined-up' thinking manifest themselves in holistic practices that can 'see everything', 'know everything' and 'do anything', and thus a 'holistic power' to discipline and control every aspect of welfare recipients lives. Since holistic power is seen as infallible, its failure to produce 'active bodies' necessitates the creation of secondary 'joined-up powers' that individualize blame and exclude those to blame from welfare resources. These 'secondary powers' match the social disciplines enforced by one welfare agency (e.g. the responsibility to work enforced by the employment service) with legal rights under another agency (e.g. the right to housing from social landlords), so that breach of the former leads to exclusion from the latter. I conclude that this power strategy is primitive and punitive because it simply excludes welfare recipients. Exclusion is also uneconomic because it pushes welfare recipients into the shade of welfare institutional power.