The SAGE Handbook of International Social Work

Karen H Lyons, Terry Hokenstad, Manohar Pawar, Nathalie Huegler, Nigel Hall, Karen H Lyons, Terry Hokenstad, Manohar Pawar, Nathalie Huegler, Nigel Hall, Author

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780857023339
• eBook ISBN: 9781473971608
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

Social work is a profession that is increasingly involved with issues which have a global dimension. This Handbook tackles the global/local aspect of social work in its various forms and interrogates the key concerns that societies are facing through an international lens. The contributors show that, with an appreciation of commonalities and differences, local practices and appropriate forms of international activity can be better developed.

Areas covered include:

- Analysis of ?International social work?

- Globalisation and indigenisation

- Social justice and human rights

- Poverty and livelihoods

- Ecological issues

- Migration

- Education, theory, research and practice

- Social work in different settings

- Religion and spirituality

- Responses to disasters and conflicts

- Life course perspectives

- Regional perspectives

- Future directions

With a truly international range of contributions, the Handbook incorporates perspectives from Asia, Africa, Europe, Australasia, the Middle East and the Americas.

It will be an invaluable resource for undergraduates, postgraduates, researchers and academics working in the fields of social work, social welfare, human services, and community development worldwide, as well as service providers and policy makers in the international arena.

1

Setting the Scene

Nathalie Huegler, Karen Lyons and Manohar Pawar

INTRODUCTION

In an increasingly interdependent world, the domains of social work, social development and the social professions, more generally, are not immune from the global processes affecting whole societies and, more specifically, national welfare systems – or the lack of them – and the living standards and life chances of individuals, families, groups and communities. It is increasingly acknowledged that ‘social work’ is influenced by global trends and that many social problems are either common to different societies, or have an international dimension or even involve social professionals in transnational activities and international mobility. It is therefore timely to produce a Handbook which addresses the social issues which have an international aetiology or dimension; which analyses the international organisations, conventions and policies which impact on regional, transnational and national/local (social) developments; and which interrogates and illustrates a term which has a long genesis but unclear definition, ‘international social work’.

The purpose of this chapter is to orientate readers to the broad field of ‘international social work’, partly through offering a brief introduction to its origins and exponents, and centrally through exploring the various meanings that can be ascribed to the term, and some of the related concepts, e.g. ‘international perspectives’; ‘comparative social welfare’; and ‘social professionals’. We also present a preliminary analysis of some of the concerns and constructs which have particular significance in this context (e.g. globalisation and ‘glocalisation’; indigenisation; the global North and global South) and suggest that ideas of ‘space’ and ‘time’ are salient concepts in social work (i.e. geographical and historical factors in macro terms but also the micro space and time elements of individual and community lives). The role of constructs such as race, ethnicity, culture and religion in the context of globalisation and their relevance for international social work are discussed as are the relationship between values, diversity and power relations. Also, as a precursor to more detailed discussions later, we sketch out some of the important trends and comparative data about global issues which provide a backdrop to social interventions at global, regional and local levels. Finally, we describe the organisation of the book and give a brief preview of its contents.

Overall, this Handbook provides a ‘state of the art’ analysis of ‘international social work’ as a specialist form of professional practice. However, in a global context, the practices of all social professionals are increasingly influenced by macro-economic and political forces and informed by international conventions and the inter-relationships between nations and transnational communities. The Handbook also uses an international lens to view social work as a local activity and sometimes takes a comparative perspective to illustrate the diversity of social work theories and practices across the world. We should clarify now that ‘social work’ is used in this Handbook as a generic term for a diverse occupational group which takes many forms across the globe. The emphasis of work varies between countries and regions as do the challenges; social professionals have different training opportunities and traditions and are known by different titles; and they are employed in a varied range of settings and agencies with different conditions regarding public expectations, esteem and regulation. Even apparently shared values may be contested in the context of particular (national) cultures and agreement about a shared/international value base which does not simply perpetuate ‘Western’ ideologies and power (relative to the interests and claims of indigenous and/or minority populations) is an on-going challenge.¹

The Handbook is ‘international’ both in terms of the wide range of countries from which the authors are drawn and also through the use of examples in the chapters which help elaborate both national differences and also shared concerns and practices. The latter identify social work as a recognisable activity in many countries of the world. For example, 92 national associations of social workers have chosen to join the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) while schools of social work from up to 100 countries are members of the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW). A third international body, the International Council of Social Welfare (ICSW), comprising, predominantly, national umbrella or lead organisations representing third sector or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and international organisations in more than 70 countries, reflects a similarly wide geographical spread of social work and development initiatives. These three bodies are important in giving a voice, internationally, to social workers and those involved in social development and are (at the time of writing) engaged in developing a ‘global agenda’ for social work (see websites of the three organisations and later).

The aims of the Handbook can therefore be summarised as follows:

• to critically review and advance our understanding of the term ‘international social work’ as both a specialist form of practice and as a way of better appreciating local conditions and developing local practice
• to analyse and draw on related concepts, such as international perspectives; comparative social welfare; and transnational social work to illustrate both commonalities and diversity globally
• to present key social issues relevant to social work in international, historical and contemporary perspectives and identify particular practices in social work and social development which have international dimensions
• to indicate potential directions for research, education and practice in the fields of international, comparative and transnational social work.

KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS USED IN THIS HANDBOOK

We start by analysing and defining some terms and concepts which will be used in this chapter and in the handbook overall. The key concept at the heart of this handbook, naturally, is ‘international social work’ itself but, before considering this term, it is useful to look at some of the related concepts which form the basis for considering international social work.

What do we understand by ‘international’?

A central term which needs to be defined in the context of this Handbook is ‘international’ – and particularly the question of how this relates to similar terms (sometimes used interchangeably) such as ‘transnational’, ‘cross-national’ or ‘global’. An obvious commonality among the first three terms is that they all make reference to the concept of the nation-state, a link which is significant for social work both historically and currently, as we will discuss later. Healy (2001: 5) has provided a helpful distinction between the terms ‘global’ and ‘international’, stating that the former indicates a concern for the world as a whole, while ‘international’ involves issues and relationships between two or more nations (or their citizens), or which transcend national boundaries and viewpoints. The transcendence of national boundaries is emphasised even more strongly by the term ‘transnational’, which departs from the view of the nation-state as a ‘container’ for political, economic, social and cultural activities and relationships and instead focuses on practices, organisations, networks and flows, which create on-going interconnections across borders, particularly on the microlevel of human relationships (e.g. through transnational migration networks) (Glick Schiller and Levitt, 2006). Cross-national, on the other hand, often refers to comparisons or transactions between a (limited) number of nation-states (Healy, 2001).

Along with various terms that indicate some form of border crossing (whether actual or more ‘virtual’), this introduction also needs to consider the various ‘spatial’ units ‘below’ and ‘beyond’ the nation-state which are of relevance to (international) social work. The growth of literature in the international social work field in recent years has sparked (or perhaps rekindled) debates about what might be appropriate ‘locations’ of social work, and whether suggesting a ‘global’ frame of reference for the profession is – in polarised forms – a necessity of our time (Ife, 2001) or a project of (at best) unrealistic vanity or (at worst) imperialism by a selected elite of academics from economically privileged countries (Webb, 2003; Haug, 2005; Gray and Webb, 2007) The tensions brought out by these debates reflect both the many contentions inherent in the practice and theory of social work as such (from the micro- through to the macro-level), as well as the contradictions and complexities, which characterise various spatial units. Few people would probably dispute the statement that social work has been and is a ‘locality-bound’ (as well as time-specific) activity (Lyons, 1999), but quite what constitutes a ‘locality’ is a less well-defined and even contested notion. We can imagine various meanings ranging from fairly small human settlements (e.g. a village or, an urban neighbourhood); the ‘local’ level of a whole city or urban or rural conglomerations of several hundred thousand or even a few million inhabitants which have been grouped together as administrative units; through to the level of a society delimited by national borders. More often than not ‘local’ seems to be defined mainly in relation to other spatial contexts, for example, as an opposite to ‘global’ (Dominelli, 2010).²

Distinguishing ‘regions’

Another example of a term which can be ambiguous is ‘region’ – which in some contexts denotes different areas within a country, but which we mainly use in this Handbook to refer to different continental regions of the world. Grouping countries into regions or even finding appropriate names to describe regions is far from straight-forward, and the difficulties brought about by such attempts (which we have nevertheless made) are highlighted in most of the ‘regional perspectives’ chapters in Section 5 of this Handbook.

On the point of language, we also need to acknowledge that any discussion which seeks to compare or contrast different parts of the world in terms of economic and political power relations involves word choices which are contentious. In this chapter, and elsewhere, we tend to use the terms ‘global North’ and ‘global South’ to distinguish between countries which (usually based on historically developed power dynamics, e.g. through colonialism) are relatively rich and powerful in the international arena, and those that have tended to be economically and politically marginalised – often because their resources were (or continue to be) exploited by other nations. While this distinction reflects, to some extent, actual geographical locations of the countries and regions in either the northern or southern hemisphere of the world, like any dichotomy, this categorisation has exceptions (e.g. Australia or New Zealand as relatively wealthy nations in the geographical South) and blurred boundaries (e.g. the status of poor nations in rich regions, such as some states in Eastern Europe). The notion of ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ nations itself is relativised through the fact that there are privileged ‘elites’ in the South (for instance, the relatively small number of billionaires in India continues to grow, while the vast majority still live on less than $US2 per day (e.g. Agrawal, 2011) and excluded populations in the North. Other ‘typologies’ used in this Handbook include that of ‘Western’ nations (or concepts and ideas which originated there) which usually denotes a similar ‘area’ to that described by the term global North. ‘Western’ is sometimes contrasted with ‘Eastern’, but more often with ‘non-Western’, which already alludes to some of the difficulties associated with this particular term. A further common distinction used by the UN is that of ‘developed’ relative to ‘developing’ regions or countries. This suggests a certain progressional path in which countries with access to more resources are considered to have moved ‘further along’ than those with less resources. While many may view this as unproblematic when comparing the economic ‘output’ and technological ‘advances’ of certain countries, the difficulty with this terminology is that it can suggest inferiority or ‘backwardness’ in the context of social or cultural issues, with negative implications for attitudes and behaviours towards populations in countries so described. Perhaps the terms, ‘industrialised’ (or post-industrial) and ‘industrialising’ convey a more neutral description. Distinctions can also be made more overtly on the basis of economic wealth as in the terms ‘minority world’ and ‘majority world’, sometimes referred to as the ‘one-thirds’ and ‘two-thirds’ world (Sewpaul and Jones, 2004). These terms reflect the considerable inequality of resource distribution across the globe as well as the fact that a minority of the world’s population sustains luxurious life styles on the very basis that these are unattainable for the remaining majority. Each of these dichotomies seems to have its particular problems and the various notions can be contested. Therefore, in editing this Handbook, we have refrained from seeking to establish a standardised vocabulary but suggest that linguistic diversity within even the Anglophone literature (not to mention the literature in other languages) is a reality and a testimony to the richness of ideas and concepts in social work, as well as providing its own challenges.

Globalisation – what does it mean and is it relevant?

Turning to another key concept for this Handbook, the term ‘globalisation’ (see Chapter 2), continues to generate debate about its meaning, range and even its existence or novelty status, as well as its relation to social reform and social work (Teeple, 2000; Payne and Askeland, 2008). Among the many different views and perspectives are those which view globalisation predominantly as an economic process spreading capitalist ideas and modes of production as well as integrating local markets into a wider global market, and those which consider it to be a more multidimensional process which has social, political, cultural and environmental (or spatial) aspects and consequences that are as important as the economic ones. There are also different views on the role of nation-states within globalisation – ranging from the notion that states are losing power and influence to transnational corporations, which are free to set their own conditions, through to the argument that globalisation has done relatively little to influence the existing international power dynamics among nation-states, with Western states remaining privileged in profiting from capitalist structures and retaining their hegemony in organisations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and even the United Nations (UN). However, in relation to this last point, the increasing economic power of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) is set to challenge established power positions in the world order. Midgley (2008) argues that some of the literature on globalisation (including that from within the social work field) has tended to provide an oversimplified presentation of the processes involved, ignoring the complexities and often paradoxical nature of the phenomenon. He contrasts different positions, particularly in the context of globalisation’s impact on culture: the first perspective highlights the destructive nature of globalisation (particularly through the worldwide and unbridled spread of capitalism) leading to global disorder, cultural fragmentation, the erosion of social ties and the end of certainty and continuity. The second perspective argues that globalisation leads to increasing convergence and homogenisation of values and practices, perpetuating cultural imperialism and a dominance of Western values such as individualism, rationalisation and standardisation in many domains of human life, while at the same time producing international like-minded ‘elites’. A third perspective focuses on the ‘backlash’ against the dominance of Western values leading to polarisation and conflict, fuelled by growing economic disparities and uncertainties. Finally, the fourth perspective emphasises the emergence of new, hybridised cultural patterns resulting from the fusion of indigenous and exogenous values and practices – particularly through migration and the media.

Midgley (2008) considers the inconclusiveness of these various positions and the lack of a single perspective as problematic, including social work. On the other hand, one could argue that such differences reflect the dialectical nature of globalisation. For example, seemingly opposite trends of ‘localisation’ (such as the growing identificati...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Notes on the Editors
• Notes on the Contributors
• Editorial Advisory Board
• List of Tables and Figures
• Preface and Acknowledgements
• 1 Setting the Scene
• SECTION 1 CONCEPTS, PROCESSES AND VALUES
• SECTION 2 PROFESSIONAL CONTEXTS
• SECTION 3 KEY ISSUES FOR SOCIAL WORK INTERNATIONALLY
• SECTION 4 LIFE-COURSE PERSPECTIVES
• SECTION 5 REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES
• Appendix 1: International Definition of Social Work (IFSW/IASSW)
• Appendix 2: Ethics of Social Work: Statement of Principles
• Appendix 3: Global Standards for the Education and Training of the Social Work Profession
• Appendix 4: The United Nations
• Appendix 5: Human Rights: The Human Rights Triptych
• Appendix 6: Millennium Development Goals
• Index