Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyse Charles Anthony Raven Crosland and Thomas Humphrey Marshall’s respective theories of equalisation and civic duty, and assesses the ethical criticisms made against these theories. Many of the ethical criticisms levelled against Crosland and Marshall argue that their theories focused exclusively on equalisation and social rights. In taking a morally neutral position, they neglected the duties that should be performed by citizens. This paper assesses the force of these ethical criticisms.

The paper begins by identifying the cardinal points of Crosland and Marshall’s theories of equalisation and the duties that should be performed by citizens. The author ask whether it is reasonable to conclude that they took morally neutral positions and neglected these duties. The author then explore and assess the critique levied against Crosland and Marshall.

Crosland took a passive stance on the intervention of the government in civic morality and did not develop a discussion of the duties that ought to be performed by citizens. Thus, in some respects, he cannot avoid the ethical criticism that he took a morally neutral position and neglected civic duty. Marshall did not discuss only equalisation and social rights, but also considered the duties that ought to be performed by citizens. Consequently, it is concluded that the ethical criticism of his theory is not valid.

The paper makes an original contribution in the understanding of three areas: Crosland’s moral neutrality, Marshall’s discussion on civic duty, and the ethical criticism of Keynesian social democracy.

This article aims to explore the character of an emerging model of corporate social responsibility (CSR)‐oriented societal governance in an exchange theoretical perspective and to examine the distinctive characteristics of the relations between civil society, business and government in the new model and the drivers behind it.

By analyzing typical roles and role‐sets in political, commercial and regulatory exchange, the article pin‐points characteristics of the embedded relational governance/CSR model contrasted against liberal governance and the Keynesian welfare state. The analysis is stylized and conceptually based, in line with the Weberian ideal type concept and brings out stylized juxtapositions of the three governance models based on previous studies.

An emerging model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) or embedded relational governance seems to share the basic market orientation of the liberal model, yet, at the same time, sharing many of the social and collective goals of the welfare state. This combination is apparently achieved by embedding the social dimension into civil society and self‐regulatory market processes. Finally, the paper reflects on the drivers behind the new governance approach, in the context of a globalizing economy. The paper argues that NGO‐driven communicative intermediation interfacing with an increasing CSR and corporate governance focus in financial evaluation may serve to retain some of the social agenda from the welfare state, under the CSR‐ or embedded‐relational model, an agenda that seemed to be gradually losing out with the global competitive exposure of the welfare state.

The article presents a stylized analytical framework of CSR/embedded relational governance that lays a basis for further exploration and systematic testing through comparative empirical studies.

The paper brings out the interplay between political, regulatory and commercial processes and gives a broader understanding of the societal implications of CSR.

Original contributions of this paper: first, the analytical formulation of the societal governance implications of CSR; second, the exchange theoretical conceptualization of this mode of societal governance.

Introduces a special issue on globalization and the welfare state. Asserts that economic globalization constrains national economic and social policy far more now than ever before, although the level of international trade has not increased that much compared to levels at the beginning of this century. Talks about the political consequences of economic globalization, particularly welfare state retrenchment in the advanced capitalist world. Outlines the papers included in this issue – comparing welfare system changes in Sweden, the UK and the USA; urban bias in state policy‐making in Mexico; and the developing of the Israeli welfare state. Concludes that economic globalization has a limited effect in shaping social welfare policy in advanced capitalist countries; nevertheless, recommends further research into which aspects of economic globalization shape social welfare policy.

To explore the shifting contours of politico-economic governmental responsibility and accountability from the consensually driven Keynesian welfare state model through to the market focused neo-liberal new public management (NPM) approach and beyond. In particular the chapter addresses the post-2008 crisis and austerity environment. It questions why the apparent failure of the market privileged neo-liberal model resulting in financial crisis and the prolonged aftermath has not led to an alternative recognizably coherent or consensually based approach to government and state responsibility for politico-economic management, and the implications of this for the accountability of public services.

The chapter draws on extensive literature across economic, social policy, public management and other fields as well as government and key institutional documents and reports. This enables a comparative perspective on governmental approaches to politico-economic management and management of public services, addressing key areas of consensus, responsibility and accountability.

The chapter traces the trajectory of governmental accountability and responsibility from Keynesianism to neo-liberalism and NPM, conceptually grounding these policy shifts and punctuations. It suggests that the key issue – why the dramatic failure of the neo-liberal model from 2008 has not led to a new emerging paradigm – may be answered not simply by reference to the continuation of neo-liberal approaches, but by appreciating that a number of countries have in fact implemented adaptive and resilient systems which have accommodated many of the neo-liberal NPM prescriptions. The findings conclude with some speculation on the future of government and public sector accountabilities and responsibilities.

The purpose of the paper is to develop alternative paths to the transition process as a result of alternative models of transition.

A political economy methodology to the transition process results in alternative transition models. As a result five alternative models of transition come into being.

Transition models can be distinguished on the basis of economic analysis, speed and the political structure. Each model recommended a set of economic policies to facilitate the transition process. The adoption of gradualist processes of transition – except in the case of shock therapy – requires a sequence by which the reforms should be introduced.

The paper contributes to the transition literature by developing a set of economic policies combined with a sequence path for each transition model.

In a globalised economy, the EU, being self-confident, could shape international standards by defending and promoting its own socioeconomic model. Social democratic parties rhetorically confess the need for a ‘European social model’, but meanings and ways to achieve it differ largely. In a comparative case study on the programmatic positioning of the German Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands and the Spanish Partido Socialista Obrero Español, the parties' perspectives on the integration mode and their handling of the Economic and Monetary Union framework and its crisis over the last decade are traced. Although similar paths from neoliberal convictions of the ‘third way’ to a positive integration process in a fiscal union setting are found, the scope and levels vary, illustrating the abilities of both parties to meet new transnational challenges. The crisis of the Eurozone was a definitive turning point for the positioning of the Social Democrats in Spain in favour of more political and fiscal integration. In contrast, their German comrades already advocated increased social integration of the EU since 2005 but remained very cautious regarding reforms of the economic framework established by the Eurozone.

Discusses attempts by the government’s political opposition (in the UK) to break the consensus on welfare and considers whether the recent change in political power has materially altered the direction of policy relating to care in the community and the role of social workers. Charts the development of the British welfare state from its conception in 1945 through to the present day, focussing on recent reforms in community care provisions and the role of social workers; details how the profession has been undermined by a series of events and profiles the former government’s response. Identifies that the welfare role of social workers has diminished, and been replaced with a social control function. Concludes that, despite the legacy inherited from the previous government, a shift in the political approach to social services and community care provision is discernible.

The chapter aims to discuss the social housing history and urban renewal experiences in Turkey while pointing out similarities to and variegations from the urban policy trends in the global north in the postwar era. To carry out these discussions, the chapter focuses on the Karapınar Project in Eskişehir.

The chapter is built on an anthropological case study and a self-funded video documentary research that includes insights from local inhabitants, projects’ authorities, urban experts, and planners in order to show contesting claims and views about the renewal, new housing conditions, and economic consequences.

The Karapınar Renewal Project is a Mass Housing Administration (TOKİ) project which claimed to be a ‘welfare oriented’, ‘renewal on-site’, ‘social housing project’ aiming to turn gecekondu – squatter settlements – into a healthy neighborhood. Yet, these claims fail to meet their promises and only appear to mask the actual rent-seeking motivations of the project.

The chapter shows that large economic profits of the authorities create a significant contrast with economic burdens and dispossessions of the poor residents. The locals’ fears about the payments and concerns about changing living conditions are in sharp contradiction with the welfare claims of the state institutions.

The Karapınar Project uses the concepts of ‘social housing’ and ‘welfare state’ which are normally associated with policies of social democratic ideology. Yet, when looking into the reality, it becomes clear that the Karapınar Project shifted the meanings of these concepts and utilized them to create a space for legitimacy.

These reforms offer a vision of a fairer welfare system where truly no one is written off, where nearly everyone is preparing or looking for work, where everyone is treated as an individual and gets the support they need. More importantly, these reforms point the way to a fairer society where children don't grow up in poverty, where disabled people enjoy real equality, and everyone is given real help to overcome the barriers to achieving their full potential. (DWP, 2008, p. 8)Workfare has finally arrived in the UK, but not with trumpet blasts of outrage: it's been smuggled in with lofty rhetoric about ‘personalisation’, ‘individually tailored’ advice and support which will enable people to ‘take control of their journey to work'. (Bunting, 2009)

Rural welfare is more than addressing problems of ‘poverty’. As we argue here, social policy initiatives are also conceived by governments as solutions to geographical problems about uneven regional development and population distribution. What these problems were, and how welfare provision could solve them, has varied from generation to generation and takes shape in place-specific ways. That welfare provision has operated as de facto geographical development and population policy is particularly the case in Australia, in its context of massive continental size and heterogeneous rural places. In Australia, the ‘rural’ means much more than just the ‘countryside’ surrounding or between networks of cities and towns (in the traditional European sense; see Gorman-Murray, Darian-Smith, & Gibson, 2008). ‘Rural Australia’ is inserted into national politics as a slippery geographical category, coming to encompass all of non-metropolitan Australia (each of Australia's states only having one major city), within which there is great diversity: broadacre farming regions involving the production of cash crops at scales of thousands of squared kilometres; regions producing rice and cotton with state-sponsored irrigation; coastal agricultural zones with smaller and usually older land holdings (often the places of traditional ‘family farming’ communities); single industry regions focused around minerals extraction or defence (many of Australia's major defence bases being located outside state capitals either in sparsely populated regions in Australia's north or in smaller ‘country towns’ in the south, where they dominate local demography); semi-arid rangelands regions dominated by enormous pastoral stations leased on Crown land (single examples of which rival the United Kingdom in size); and remote savannah and desert regions many thousands of kilometres from capital cities, supporting Aboriginal communities living on traditional country mixing subsistence hunting and gathering with government-supported employment and food programmes. In this context, rural welfare performs a social policy function, but also becomes a means for government to comprehend, problematise and manage geographical space.