The aim of this book has been to link comparative welfare state and social work research from an atypical, ‘reversed’ perspective, by using a bottom-up instead of a top-down approach: because social work constitutes an integral part of the welfare state, and social policy has such important structural effects on the lives of social work clients, social work – at different political and actor levels – is considered a ‘political actor’ with an ethical duty as well as the potential to actively engage in the making of social policy. This is also the message of the global definition of social work: ‘social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing’. As welfare states across industrialised countries have been transformed significantly since the turn of the century, it is all the more important to gather systematic knowledge on how the profession and discipline of social work, which is very close to the most vulnerable groups of society, is involved in these important changes. Analytically, we have used the concept of the policy cycle in order to structure and connect the analyses.

Social work, problem definition and agenda setting

What can we learn from the analyses presented on social work(er) s’ role at the stages of problem definition and agenda setting of the policy cycle? A key question at these stages seems to be: who is regarded as being responsible for perceived social problems? And what is the role of social work in this – either by contradicting or even reinforcing mainstream perceptions? Are we talking about an issue of child neglect or about poor families in need of support (see Chapter 2)? Are sexually exploited youngsters treated as criminals or as victims (see Chapter 3)?

By exploring developments in the UK during the last few decades, Roger Smith (Chapter 2) has identified a number of inhibiting factors in terms of the profession's capacity to act as a ‘policy innovator’. According to these observations, individualising tendencies in social work practice are often linked with a ‘partly self-imposed limitation’ of social work which focuses on individuals, families and ‘private’ issues.