Search results

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- New Preface for the Reissue of Social Theory and Social Policy -- Original Title Page -- Original Copyright Page -- Foreword -- Dedication -- Table of Contents -- Introduction -- Acknowledgments -- Part One: Social Theory and The Development of Social Administration -- 1: A Search for Paternity Amongst the Founding Fathers -- Sociology and Problems of Social Welfare -- Durkheim and Moral Welfare -- Spencer and Social Welfare -- Marx and Social Reform -- Weber and State Welfare -- Summary -- 2: The Origins of Social Administration -- The Problem of Poverty: Early Theoretical Perspectives -- 'Blue-Book' Sociology and The Empirical Response to Theory -- Deterrence and Therapy-The Administrative Compromise -- Social Policy and The Economic Market -- Summary -- Part Two: The Uses of Social Theory -- 3: Ideology, Rhetoric and Evidence -- Normative Models of Social Welfare -- Relative Definitions of Social Need -- Social Criticism and The Use of Evidence -- Democracy and Social Justice -- Summary -- 4: Exchange and Stigma -- Social Services as Exchange Systems -- Public Services as Exchange Systems -- Dependency, Compassion and Stigma -- A Model of Social Welfare -- 5: Some Current Problems in Social Policy -- New Priorities in Policy-Making and Research -- The Contribution of the Social Scientist in Positive Discrimination Programmes -- Citizenship and Dependency -- Conclusion -- Bibliography -- Index.

In this essay, I review developments in the ongoing debate about the causal connections between poverty, personal behaviour and social inequality. I also discuss the normative issues that arise in defining poverty and in deciding what role redistributive social policies ought to play in its prevention and relief.I go on to compare the behavioural explanations of the causes of poverty that are normatively associated with theories of economic market liberalism and the structural explanations that are grounded in theories of socialism and other more pluralist forms of social-democratic collectivism.I conclude that these two unitary ideologies of individualism and collectivism are reaching the end of their useful lives as exclusive guides in shaping the ends and means of social policies. In democratic societies, compromises have to be made between radically different views about what constitutes an equitable distribution of wealth and income, and what kind of balance should be struck between the claims of freedom and welfare. Viable compromises on these divisive issues can only be reached in the mixed economies of democratic pluralist societies.

Abstract Nearly forty years ago, the publication of 'The Price of Blood' (1968) and 'The Gift Relationship' (1970) added a new dimension of ideological conflict to the debate about the values, ends and means of social policy. The questions that Richard Titmuss posed in 'The Gift Relationship' are still discussed in current debates about the respective merits of unitary and pluralist models of welfare, the egoistic and altruistic motives that underpin them, and the rights and responsibilities intrinsic to the status of citizenship. The ways in which the content and focus of these debates have changed over the past forty years are here reviewed, taking Titmuss's 'The Gift Relationship', my own contributions in 'Social Theory and Social Policy' (1971) and 'The Idea of Welfare' (1979), and Julian Le Grand's 'Motivation, Agency and Public Policy' (2003) as the temporal and salient points of reference. A brief introduction describes how the academic debate became sharply polarized in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and how a key decision about the future development of this journal was taken at the same time.

The evolution of scholarship regarding the relationship between social welfare & freedom in the London School of Economics & Political Science (England) throughout the 20th century is reviewed. It is contended that 1920s-1930s research performed under the guidance of William Beveridge was integral in the development of national social policy. L. T. Hobhouse's (1922) advocacy for social policy that emphasized the redistribution of taxes & other finances from the wealthy to the indigent is contrasted with various economic approaches for achieving national prosperity (eg, Edwin Cannan's support for eliminating institutional constraints on competition). The respective contributions of T. H. Marshall (eg, 1981), R. H. Tawney (1931), & R. M. Titmuss (eg, 1987) to the study of welfare & freedom during the 1950s are discussed. Contemporary interdisciplinary approaches that emphasize the importance of variety & choice to social policy are examined. Rather than concentrating on differences between individualism & collectivism, future research is urged to develop more sophisticated models for analyzing policy making. 74 References. J. W. Parker

Der Verfasser zeigt, daß das Wesen des britischen Sozialsystems seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg im Kern weder staatlich-universalistisch noch residual, sondern pluralistisch war. Er gibt einen Überblick über die intellektuelle Geschichte der Sozialpolitik im allgemeinen und des Wohlfahrtspluralismus im besonderen, wobei vor allem Beveridge als Begründer und Titmuss als Kritiker des Wohlfahrtspluralismus behandelt werden. Es schließt sich eine Darstellung der Positionen der politischen Parteien Großbritanniens in der aktuellen Diskussion um die Sozialpolitik an. Darüberhinaus weist er auf normative Aspekte in der Debatte um den Wohlfahrtspluralismus hin, wie sie vor allem bei Titmuss ins Spiel kommen. Angesichts des aktuellen politischen und ökonomischen Klimas sieht der Verfasser Wohlfahrtspluralismus als eine Form der Schadensbegrenzung, bei der die Unzulänglichkeiten des einen Politiktyps durch die Stärken des anderen kompensiert werden. (ICE2)