Search results

Interest in the subject of privatisation in Australia has increased markedly over recent years, although references to it have been made in the literature intermittently over a longer period. The original purpose of this bibliography was to record items dealing with the privatisation of welfare services. However, as work on collecting material for the entries proceeded, it became obvious that it is extremely difficult to separate privatisation of welfare services from the effects on welfare of the privatisation of enterprises not directly concerned with those services. Privatisation of enterprises such as the water supply and communication services, has direct or indirect effects on the well-being of the population. It introduces the question of 'community service obligations' (CSOs), or the non-commercial objectives of government business organisations, which are often lost when these organisations are privatised. This bibliography has therefore widened its scope to include works which refer to the effects on the well-being of the population of the privatisation of enterprises not directly in the welfare area. Another issue which has affected the choice of entries has been that of what constitutes privatisation. A number of works cited here are concerned with definition and with detailing the nature of the changes which are entailed in different forms of privatisation: deregulation, the introduction of user-pays practices, asset sales etc. Among these may be included an expanded role for the voluntary or non-profit sector in the provision of community and welfare services. These entries are found under the keyword 'Forms'.

The welfare state in the UK & elsewhere is currently caught up in a number of crises. The slowing of economic growth has reduced the resources available for its support & has consequently exposed it to theoretical challenges. In particular, it has been criticized as seeking to fulfill needs that are in fact illimitable. In addition, market & liberation theorists have suggested that the welfare state is hostile to individual autonomy & responsibility, & serves the interests of welfare professionals more than those of the poor. It appears, however, that fundamental changes in policy are less likely than incremental readjustments. The issues raised by this crisis concern the basic nature of the relation of society to state, & of both to the individual. W. H. Stoddard

Based on papers presented at a Workshop on the Politics of the Welfare State, sponsored jointly by Government and Opposition and the Department of Government, University of Manchester, held in Manchester, England, Sept. 13-14, 1984.

Feminists' engagement with contemporary US welfare reform is investigated. Although the Personal Responsibility Act is interpreted as an aggressive affront to women's rights, it is asserted that US feminists offer little resistance to the welfare reform policy. Rather than advocate women's choice to work either inside or outside the home, feminists are delineated as only supporting wage-earning employment for women. It is contended that feminists' attention to welfare reform emphasizes female recipients' personal deficiencies rather than problems with the welfare system. Moreover, emphasis on female recipients' decision making supports the dominant position that individuals who require financial support are morally deficient. Even though the termination of welfare is viewed as a positive objective, it is stated that poor women's input in ending welfare is needed. Therefore, women's domestic caregiving should be recognized as a legitimate form of work, & women's participation in the labor market must be rendered a more meaningful experience. 8 References. J. W. Parker

'CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS?', THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER was reported to have replied to a question concerning the alleged crisis in sterling. In the case of the welfare state it might seem that the appropriate response would be 'Which crisis? ' since there are several on the menu - fiscal crisis, legitimacy crisis, crisis of ungovernability . Left, Right and Centre have become convinced that there is a crisis. This is after a period of history which had seen an unprecedented rise in the standard of living of the vast majority of the population living in what are normally regarded as welfare states.

THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT (PRWORA) OF 1996 IS THE MOST AGGRESSIVE INVASION OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN THIS CENTURY. YET MOST FEMINISTS DID LITTLE TO OPPOSE ITS PASSAGE. IN FACT, MANY FEMINISTS ACTUALLY ENDORSED PRWORA'S CORE PRINCIPLES -- NAMELY, THAT POOR SINGLE MOTHERS SHOULD MOVE FROM WELFARE TO WORK AND INTO FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR CHILDREN'S FATHERS. SUCH FEMINISTS COLLABORATED WITH WELFARE REFORMERS -- EITHER THROUGH SILENCE OR THROUGH THEIR DEEDS. ALL WHITE WOMEN IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, INCLUDING FOUR DEMOCRATS WHO CALL THEMSELVES FEMINISTS, VOTED FOR THE NEW WELFARE LAW WHEN IT WAS INTRODUCED IN 1995. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 26 OF 31 DEMOCRATIC WOMEN VOTED FOR A WELFARE BILL THAT WOULD HAVE STRIPPED RECIPIENTS OF THEIR ENTITLEMENT TO WELFARE.

With welfare reform soundly launched and its effects already praised, it is time to examine its impact on former welfare recipients. A typology of adaptation to welfare—comprising dependency, supplementation, self-reliance, and autonomy—was developed based on former welfare recipients' financial status and employment status. An examination was also made of ways in which welfare recipients changed from more independent modes of adaptation (autonomy and self-reliance) to less independent modes (supplementation and dependency). Using longitudinal data extracted from a U. S. Department of Labor survey, event history analysis was applied to investigate changes in adaptation mode and factors contributing to these changes, among former welfare recipients across a period of 1 8 years. The investigation found that return to welfare was uncommon. Furthermore, the results show that nonpoor former recipients most often joined the ranks of the working poor because of welfare reform, ethnicity, education level, occupational skills, family income, housing subsidy, child care, and prior experience in welfare use. Some nonpoor former recipients who spent long spells in welfare returned to welfare because they suffered income reductions and needed food stamps. Working poor former recipients were likely to become nonpoor if they were married and had no need for child care or food stamps. Working poor White, single mothers with little work experience and little child support were likely to return to welfare and become further dependent on it.