Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-w6k7h Total loading time: 0.303 Render date: 2022-06-24T21:51:18.121Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Assumptive Worlds and Images of Agency: Academic Social Policy in the Twenty-first Century?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2008

Peter Taylor-Gooby*
Affiliation:
SSPSSR, CoNE, University of Kent, CT2 7NF E-mail: P.F.Taylor-Gooby@kent.ac.uk

Abstract

As many commentators have pointed out, the pressures facing modern welfare states are formidable. One response by government is to place greater emphasis on a policy-making paradigm that rests on an individual rational actor account of agency. This finds its intellectual home in the leading tradition of neo-classical economics, its ideological home in a politics of active citizenry and equality of opportunity and its institutional home in the mechanisms by which the Treasury currently directs social policy.

The resulting policies have strengths in delivering productivity improvements and responsiveness to consumer demand, but weaknesses in accommodating the value positions of an increasingly diverse society, in sustaining the social cohesion necessary to the continuance of state welfare and in confronting the structural basis of some social interests. These issues have traditionally been recognised in the sociology of values, the psychology of trust and the political science of power.

One strength of academic social policy is that it is a field of study in which a number of disciplines are deployed. The ascendancy of one paradigm may obscure the contribution of others. It is hard for social policy academics to gain recognition when they speak a different language from that of policy making at the highest level.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcock, P. (1996), Social Policy in Britain, Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alcock, P., Erskine, A. and May, M. (2003), Student's Companion to Social Policy, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Appleby, J. and Alvarez-Rosete, (2005), ‘Public responses to NHS reform’, in Park, A. et al. , British Social Attitudes, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Baldock, J. and Ungerson, C. (1996), ‘Becoming a consumer of care’, in Edgell, S., Hetherington, K., and Warde, A. (eds), Consumption Matters, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baldock, J., Manning, N. and Vickerstaff, S. (2007), Social Policy, third edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barker, K. (2004), Delivering Stability, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Bartlett, W., Roberts, J. and Le Grand, J. (1998), A Revolution in Social Policy, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A. and Tipton, S. (1986), Habits of the Heart, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Berger, P. and Luckman, T. (1966), The Social Construction of Reality, New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Bevan, G. and Hood, C. (2006), ‘What's measured is what matters: targets and gaming in healthcare in England’, Public Administration, 84, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanden, J., Gregg, P. and Machin, S. (2005), Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and America, London: CEPR, LSE.Google Scholar
Breen, R. (ed.) (2004), Social Mobility in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buelens, M. and Broeck, Van Den, H. (2007), ‘An analysis of differences in work motivation between public and private sector organisations’, Public Management Review, 67, 1, 6574.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, T. (2007), ‘Foundations for measuring equality’, Equalities Review Companion Report.Google Scholar
Butler, D. and Kavanagh, D. (1997), The British General Election of 1997, Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calnan, M. and Rowe, R. (2005), ‘Trust relations in the NHS’, SCARR Trust Conference, London, 12 December 2005.Google Scholar
Cvetkovich, G. and Löfstedt, E. (eds) (1999), Social Trust and the Management of Risk, London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P. (2000), ‘Trust as a commodity’, in Gambetta, Diego (ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-operative Relations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Chapter 4.Google Scholar
Deacon, A. and Mann, K. (1999), ‘Agency, modernity and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 28, 3, 413–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, A. and Williams, F. (2004), ‘Introduction: care values and the future of society’, Social Policy and Society, 3, 4, 385–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deakin, N. and Parry, R. (2000), The Treasury and Social Policy, Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, H. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (1992), Dependency Culture, Milton Keynes: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Dey, I. (2006), ‘Wearing out the work ethic’, Journal of Social Policy, 35, 4, 671–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixit, A. (2002), ‘Incentives an organisations in the public sector’, Journal of Human Resources, 37, 4, 696727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyal, L. and Gough, I. (1991), A Theory of Human Need, Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, S. and Martel, L. (2006), New Labour, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. and Edwards, R. (1999), Lone Mothers, Paid Work and Gendered Moral Rationalities, London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. and Irwin, S. (2004), ‘The social patterning of values and rationalities’, Social Policy and Society, 3, 4, 391400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gambetta, D. (ed.) (2000), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-operative Relations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gershon, P. (2004), Releasing Resources to the Front Line: Government Efficiency Review, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1989), ‘A reply to my critics’, in Held, D and Thompson, J (eds), Social Theory of Modern Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. and Ware, A. (eds) (1991), Needs and Welfare, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1985), ‘Economic action and social structure’, American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, R. (2002), Trust and Trustworthiness, New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Hargreaves-Heap, S., and Hollis, M., Lyons, B., Sugden, R., and Weale, A. (1992), The Theory of Choice, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hebson, G., Grimshaw, D. and Marchington, M. (2003), ‘PPPs and the changing public sector ethos’, Work, Employment and Society, 17, 3, 481501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, D. (2001), ‘The firm: organisational logic and criminal culture on a shifting terrain’, British Journal of Criminology, 41, 3, 549–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoggett, P. (2001), ‘Agency, rationality and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 30, 1, 3756.Google Scholar
Hoggett, P., Mayo, M. and Miller, C. (2006), ‘Private passions, the public good and public service reform’, Social Policy and Administration, 40, 7, 758–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, B. (2002), The Future of the Capitalist State, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Langan, M. (1998), Welfare: Needs, Rights and Risks, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. (2003), Motivation, Agency and Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, P. (2006), Public Service Productivity: Health, ONS, February.Google Scholar
Lister, R. (2004), Poverty, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Loomes, G. and Mehta, J. (2007), ‘The sensitivity of subjective probability to time and elicitation method’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3, 4, 201–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (2000), Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, O. (2002), A Question of Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (ed.) (2001), The New Politics of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plant, R. (1991), Modern Political Thought, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Plant, R., Lesser, H. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (1980), Political Philosophy and Social Welfare, London: Routledge Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Polanyi, K. (1944), The Great Transformation, Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Powell, M. and Hewitt, M. (2002), Welfare State and Welfare Change, Buckingham: Open University Press .Google Scholar
Power, M. (2004), The Risk Management of Everything, London: Demos.Google Scholar
Propper, C., Wilson, D. and Burgess, S. (2006), ‘Extending choice in English health care’, Journal of Social Policy, 35, 4, 537–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Public Services Productivity Panel (2002), Making a difference, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Rowntree Foundation (2006), ‘Policies towards poverty, inequality and exclusion since 1997’, at http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/0015.asp,Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1985), Commodities and Capabilities, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smelser, N. and Swedberg, R. (1994), Handbook of Economic Sociology, Princetone, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (2001), ‘Trust and confidence’, British Journal of Social Work, 31, 287305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spicker, P. (1995), Social Policy, London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Steele, J. (1999), Wasted Values, London: Public Management Foundation.Google Scholar
Stern, N. (2006), The Economics of Climate Change, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Sztompka, P. (1999), Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talbot, C. (2006), ‘Public domain – there's no debate?’, Public Finance, 23 June.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2008), ‘Choice and Values: individualized rational action and soical goals’, Journal of Social Policy, 37, 2, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P., Larsen, T. and Kananen, J. (2004), ‘Market means, welfare ends’, Journal of Social Policy, 33, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treasury (2006), Value for Money in the 2007 CSR, London: HM Treasury, 13 July.Google Scholar
Ungerson, C. (1987), Policy is Personal, London: Tavistock Institute.Google Scholar
Wanless, D. (2002), Securing our Future Health, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. (tr Henderson, A. and Parsons, T.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1978), Economy and Society, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press (original 1922).Google Scholar
Weyman, A. and Kelly, C. (1999), Risk Perception and Communication: A Review of the Literature, Health and Safety Executive, 248/99.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron (1987) Speaking Truth to Power, Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
10
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Assumptive Worlds and Images of Agency: Academic Social Policy in the Twenty-first Century?
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Assumptive Worlds and Images of Agency: Academic Social Policy in the Twenty-first Century?
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Assumptive Worlds and Images of Agency: Academic Social Policy in the Twenty-first Century?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *