Social Policy

Theories, Concepts and Issues

Michael Lavalette, Alan Pratt, Michael Lavalette, Alan Pratt

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2005
• Print ISBN: 9781412901710, 9781412901703
• eBook ISBN: 9781446236673
• Edition: 3
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

The Third Edition of this widely adopted textbook has been thoroughly revised and offers an authoritative and up-to-date coverage of the key theories, concepts and issues in social policy. The lively and readable text has been designed to provide students with the essential tools to gain a clear understanding of the theoretical debates surrounding the discipline.

The book is organized into three parts:

• Part One offers a detailed but accessible critique of major theoretical approaches such as neo-liberalism, Marxism, feminism and racism;

• Part Two explores conceptual debates such as distributive justice and postmodernism;

• PArt Three engages with contemporary social policy issues such as children, pensions and the role of New Labour.

It also features newly commissioned chapters to reflect recent developments and current debates within social policy. New areas of consideration include:

• Citizenship

• Post-structuralism

• The politics of food

• Globalization

Student exercises and reading lists feature throughout the text and practical examples are skilfully used to illustrate conceptual and theoretical material, making it the ideal core textbook for undergraduate social policy students, as well as those studying related welfare modules across the social sciences.

ONE

Introduction

Michael Lavalette and Alan Pratt

 

Introduction

Many, perhaps most of you, will not be familiar with social policy as an academic discipline and the terrain it explores. Social policy, unlike English or politics or sociology, is not a subject that you will have covered in school, except perhaps as part of the history or citizenship curricula. As a result it is not surprising that many students are a little apprehensive when they first encounter the subject at university. What areas does it deal with? What skills will be needed? How does it relate to other subjects (like politics, history, sociology, economics or criminology)?

To help orientate you to the subject we start this book by trying to define social policy as a subject and outline the perspectives followed in the rest of the book. Our hope is that by the end of the book, you will be more aware of the contested nature of social policy debates and recognise the need to examine carefully all positions and statements on social welfare issues, no matter how painful the experience might be.

What is Social Policy?

Richard Titmuss, who more than any other academic and teacher made the subject of social policy an accepted and ‘respectable’ academic discipline, wrote somewhat wearily of ‘this tiresome business of defining social policy’ (Titmuss, 1974: 28), and it is difficult not to sympathise with him.

One approach would be to follow the example of a multitude of books over the years and quote the opinions of the good and the great on the subject. Indeed, Titmuss himself adopted this policy on a number of occasions and it is a method adopted by David Gil (1973) in his now classic text Unravelling Social Policy. Although over 30 years old it can be argued that Gil’s analysis remains one of the most authoritative and rigorous in the entire literature. He devotes considerable time to a review of then existing definitions of social policy as discipline and practice, and, in the end, rejects them all as being too limited; even Titmuss himself, though afforded due recognition for his sophistication and breadth, is regarded as being too narrow. For Gil, social policy’s major focal concern is the analysis of access to life-enhancing and life-sustaining resources, and, as such, even foreign policy could legitimately be included within its domain. In contrast, Titmuss’s observation seems rather too narrow, that basically:

 

We are concerned with the study of a range of social needs and the functioning, in conditions of scarcity, of human organisation, traditionally called social services or social welfare systems, to meet those needs. This complex area of social life lies outside or on the fringes of the so-called free market, the mechanisms of price and tests of profitability. (Titmuss, 1976: 20)

Whatever its shortcomings for Gil, Titmuss’s approach takes us to the heart of the matter and, in so doing, raises other problems which are as intractable as the definition of social policy itself and just as relevant. In essence Titmuss is concerned with the allocation of a limited range of resources to meet a range of social needs. In reality, although there have been variations between countries, these social needs are for health care, housing, education, income maintenance during periods of interruption or cessation of earnings, and that multiplicity of dependencies which in Britain are the concern of the personal social services. The market’s role in meeting these needs should, according to Titmuss and the entire intellectual and political tradition he did so much to shape, be minimal. Consumption of these erstwhile commodities is far too important to be left to command over resources in markets. At this point it should be noted that there is no practical reason precluding the allocation of health care and the rest through unfettered private markets. An allocation of these experiences could be secured in this way and classical liberals in the past together with their neo-liberal counterparts today make exactly this point. The crux is whether such an allocation would be successful in meeting the population’s needs.

Once again we are driven into the realm of definition. What constitutes need? Can anyone ever define need objectively? Is there a generally agreed definition of social need or must it be as open-ended as the definition of social policy itself. Thus we move from concept to concept, from definitional problem to definitional problem, and there is no easy way out, except perhaps to say, as the classical and neo-liberals do that the only ‘things’ whose allocation falls properly within the realm of public policy, and thus outside the market, are defence and law and order, the traditional functions of the night-watchman state. Otherwise, when we speak of social problems and social needs we are merely giving voice to our own particular prejudices, values and opinions. Such opinions may be more or less well-informed and clearly or ill articulated but if we move beyond the harsh and rigid logic of public goods theory we are left with little other than personal preference and tradition.

The tradition that the allocation of the experiences identified above is, in part at least, the proper responsibility of government is well-established throughout the industrial world, and rather than languish in a fog of relative values or be directed by the remorseless logic of perfect markets (which probably do not exist anyway), it might be both productive and sensible to proceed from this reality; and to take it as a ‘given’ in our analysis. For a variety of reasons, in a variety of methods, and with varying degrees of success all countries, to a greater or lesser extent, modify the operation of market forces in the allocation of health, housing, education, income maintenance and the personal social services. One of the continuing fascinations of social policy as a subject is the way in which debate about the propriety of state intervention itself and the relative merits of particular strategies and tactics of intervention has changed and developed over the years. Significant advances in conceptual and theoretical sophistication have been made over the last 50 years (many of them covered in this book) as the subject has grown and matured, but the objects of analysis remain much as Titmuss discussed them over 30 years ago. Thus:

 

1. The analysis and description of policy formation and its consequences, intended and unintended
2. The study of structure, function, organisation, planning and administrative processes of institutions and agencies, historical and comparative
3. The study of social needs and of problems of access to, utilisation, and patterns of outcome of services, transactions and transfers
4. The analysis of the nature, attributes and distribution of social costs and dis-welfares
5. The analysis of distributive and allocative patterns in command-over-resources-through-time and the particular impact of the social services
6. The study of the roles and functions of elected representatives, professional workers, administrators and interest groups in the operation and performance of social welfare institutions
7. The study of the social rights of the citizen as contributor, participant and user of social services
8. The study of the role of government (local and central) as an allocator of values and of rights to social property as expressed through social and administrative law and other rule-making channels

(Titmuss, 1976: 22–3)

Titmuss was, of course, as aware as anyone of the significance of occupational and fiscal welfare, indeed he pioneered their study (Titmuss, 1962), but the long quotation above is limited to the extent that it omits three areas of concern. First, there is no mention of the role of the market. To Titmuss and his colleagues market failure was both a historic fact and an article of faith. He shared with Myrdal (1972) the conviction that the long, post-war progress of the social democratic welfare state was an immutable reality. While the occasional tactical retreat might be necessary at times of transient political crisis, the strategic conquest of the market was secure. The history of industrial capitalism had demonstrated the market’s unsuitability as an allocative agency for those resources essential to the experience of a full and complete life. Any possibility that a return to the market might be seriously advocated was minimal. Organisations like the Institute of Economic Affairs, founded in 1957, which canvassed such ideas were regarded as amusing, marginal irritants with nothing serious or substantial to contribute to the intellectual and political debate.

Second, there is a failure to recognise that social policies can be instruments of social control. Inherent to this Fabian complacency (although specifically rejected by Titmuss) was the idea that social policy would always tend to be beneficial, humanitarian and progressive. That in a world changed forever by the intellectual revolution personified by Keynes and Beveridge, discussions about the future of the welfare state would focus on points of administrative and technical detail rather than the institutional model of welfare itself. It was left to the theorists of the Marxist left and the neo-liberal right to point out the control and oppression of individuals and families present in relatively undemocratic and unaccountable welfare structures. The Fabian tradition of social administration, organised by and delivered to a relatively powerless population, was always susceptible to charges of paternalism. Authority and power did not rest with the citizen but with the bureaucracy which operated at several removes from those who received education, health care, housing and so on. It also became clear that much of the provision was structured on the lines of class, ‘race’ and gender. The terrain of social policy was an area of contention and struggle. On an altogether different plain, confirmation that social policy could be literally destructive and evil was to be found in the very recent example of Nazi Germany where the torture and murder and mass destruction of millions of Jews, homosexuals and gypsies, and the physically and mentally impaired was accomplished in the name of a clearly conceptualised and articulated social policy.

Finally, social policies are intimately bound to the societies in which they develop and reflect the priorities of these systems. Social democratic thinkers like Titmuss found this relatively unproblematic as we now lived in welfare societies where meeting the basic needs of the majority was paramount. But for other traditions in social theory this is not the case. For Marxists social policies exist within capitalist socio-economic systems and for neo-liberals within free market economies. In both these paradigms social policies are inherently problematic, reflecting, on the one hand, the contradictions of class divided societies and, on the other, the futility involved in attempts to control the free play of market forces.

These points emphasise that ‘social policy’ is in fact an intensely political – and contested – activity. It encapsulates an important arena of modern social life in which competing ideologies clash. In this regard it is worth bearing in mind that all writers on social policy ‘have a politics’ or a perspective on the world – and the authors in this collection are no different.

What unites the authors here is a rejection of the primacy afforded to the market as an institution of resource allocation by the major political parties in Britain. The authors occupy a variety of positions on the centre-left of politics and, indeed, disagree with each other at least as much as they do with the thrust of New Labour social policy. Given that one of our objectives is for you to understand the contested nature of the ideas and concepts dealt with in this book it is probably an advantage that it is a multi-authored text.

Reflecting the contested nature of the subject, this book is divided into three sections. In the first part we introduce different theoretical approaches to the study of social policy. Included are social democratic, neo-liberal, Marxist, feminist and anti-racist perspectives on the subject. In the second section we look at some conceptual debates. In particular we look at the questions of distributive justice, and of citizenship and a debate (in Chapters 9 and 10) over the merits (or otherwise) of ‘postmodern’ approaches within the discipline. Finally, we look at a number of issues and debates within social policy. It is impossible to cover all areas within the subject but the topics and issues selected give, we feel, an overview of important areas of ongoing public and social policy debate and, we hope, emphasise the importance of social policy as a subject discipline with relevance to people’s lives.

PART ONE

Theoretical Approaches

 

In this first section we introduce the main theoretical approaches that have structured debate within the social sciences in general and social policy and social welfare studies in particular.

The first three chapters in this section deal with the ‘grand theories’ of neo-liberalism, social democracy and Marxism. Each of these approaches attempts to grasp the broad and general features of social life and attempts to provide holistic interpretations of the social world and of historical development. As such they are not primarily concerned with the specifics of social policy or developments in welfare provision but, nevertheless, each includes social welfare (its causes, developments and consequences) within its remit.

Central to these approaches is a focus on concepts like equality, justice, freedom and class. Yet, social theorists during the second half of the twentieth century noted the fact that such concepts ignored – or were ‘blind’ to – important inequalities and oppressions. Issues of gender and ‘race’ were often ignored in the writings of many ‘grand theorists’ and, as a result, feminist and anti-racist scholars have looked at the importance of these divisions and the ways in which gendered and anti-racist analyses can be included (or otherwise) within the three major approaches. The consequence is that ‘theoretical approaches’ to welfare that did not include feminist and anti-racist perspectives would be severely limited.

In Chapter 2 Alan Pratt examines those aspects of neo-liberal theory which have made such an important contribution to the explanatory power of the New Right ideology in general. After a discussion of the behavioural assumptions on which neo-liberal theory is predicated, he focuses on the claims of the free market as an allocative institution and the nature of politics in a mass democracy, and goes on to consider those characteristics which provide much of the clarity and edge of the entire perspective.

In Chapter 3 Alan Pratt examines the way in which social-democratic theorists have responded to the challenges and opportunities presented by the apparent development of a version of free-market capitalism. He discusses the extent to which this new social democracy has responded to the social and cultural changes present in modern society and whether or not this emergent political and social philosophy has succeeded in reflecting the traditional concerns of old social democracy, not least of which is the idea of a reciprocal approach to distributive justice.

In Chapter 4 Michael Lavalette looks at Marxism and welfare. Perhaps more than any other perspective Marxism produces most student apprehension. The concepts, terminology, ideas and language used by Marxists are ‘new’ to students and sometimes the language used by academic Marxists is unnecessarily complex. Nevertheless, Marxism remains a crucially important tradition with which students need to engage.

In Chapter 5 Kath Woodward introduces the feminist critique of welfare. She looks at the important role played by early social policy legislation in re-creating the family around the concept of the ‘male breadwinner’. She then proceeds to look at the way the welfare state and social policies have developed to de-prioritise the concerns of women and to devalue women as secondary welfare citizens.

Finally in this section Laura Penketh looks at the assumptions of ‘race’ and the role of racism in shaping social welfare. She starts by challenging us to think about what is meant by ‘race’ and racism and then applies a committed anti-racist perspective to an analysis of the legislative framework and the operation of social welfare.

TWO

Neo-liberalism and Social Policy

Alan Pratt

Outline Points

• This chapter is devoted to an examination of one particular strand of liberal theory, that of possessive individualism and its role in the rise of free-market capitalism to a position where it is currently the dominant form of economic and social organisation across much of the globe.
• The growth in international economic instability following the collapse of fixed exchange rates and oil price increases in the 1970s.
• The significance...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction Michael Lavalette and Alan Pratt
• Part One Theoretical Approaches
• 2 Neo-liberalism and Social Policy Alan Pratt
• 3 Towards a ‘New’ Social Democracy Alan Pratt
• 4 Marxism and Welfarism Michael Lavalette
• 5 Feminist Critiques of Social Policy Kath Woodward
• 6 Racism and Social Policy Laura Penketh
• Part Two Conceptual Debates in Social Policy
• 7 Distributive Justice and Social Policy Brian Lund
• 8 Citizenship, Social Solidarity and Social Policy Jonathan Pratt
• 9 Cultural Turns, Post-structuralism and Social Policy Beth Widdowson
• 10 Living in a Material World: Postmodernism and Social Policy Iain Ferguson
• Part Three Some Contemporary Social Policy Issues
• 11 Children, Social Policy and the State: The Dichotomy of Care and Control Stephen Cunningham and Jo Tomlinson
• 12 ‘Demographic Time Bomb’, or ‘Apocalyptic Demography’: The Great Pensions Debate Stephen Cunningham
• 13 Social Policy and the Politics of Food Laura Penketh
• 14 Wage Supplementation, Social Policy and the State: from the Old Poor Law to New Labour Alan Pratt
• 15 New Labour and the Management of Welfare Gerry Mooney
• 16 Globalisation and Social Policy Michael Lavalette
• Bibliography
• Index