Suchergebnisse

English
This article explores the shifting ethical foundations of the welfare-to-work or 'workfare' state within the richer capitalist economies of the world. It provides a discussion of the historical context; a critical analysis of competing moral discourses and ethical concepts of responsibility; and, based on this, a heuristic taxonomy of different approaches to welfare-to-work. It concludes with a critique of the dominant approaches to welfareto- work, contending that they are at worst an affront to human rights and at best ethically ambiguous in that they fail to address people's need, as opposed to their responsibility, to work.

The article explores the work–life balance policy agenda as it has emerged in post-industrial societies, such as the UK, and it reports on a small-scale study of the experiences and expectations of work–life balance in a low-income inner-London neighbourhood. From the study, certain general issues are identified relating to the inconsistency of employers' practices and the currently fragmented nature of childcare provision. And certain issues of particular relevance for low-earning parents are identified, relating to the implications of the UK's new tax credit schemes and the dearth of effective independent advice provision.

This article is, in part, an editorial introduction to the three other articles that will be addressing the commissioned theme of this issue of Benefits, which is concerned with social security appeals and redress. It briefly outlines the context and substance of those articles. In part, however, this article is also an historical and conceptual introduction to the theme as a whole. Although it would seem that impending reforms to the social security appeals system hold out the prospect of a reinvigorated and more independent form of tribunal, this article points to a deeper trend: a trend away from adjudication and appeals and towards forms of redress based on complaints procedures and technical reviews.

Abstract The "passive" welfare state was accused of promoting a dependency culture. "Active" welfare and the "what works?" approach of Britain's New Labour government is allegedly implicated in an age of post‐emotionalism, in which people are largely indifferent to the needs of others and committed primarily to their personal well‐being. This article, first, seeks to extend recent debates about agency and motivation in social policy and relate them to the notion of post‐emotionalism. Second, it draws on a recent empirical study of popular and welfare provider discourses, which suggests that popular opinion can accommodate an appreciation of human interdependency, while welfare providers remain committed to a public service ethos. None the less, Third Way thinking is associated with a narrowing of solidaristic responsibilities. The problem for the future of health, social care and state welfare policies lies not with the imagined consequences of post‐emotionalism, so much as with an ideological context that perpetuates a distorted ethic of responsibility.

In its proposals for achieving a better 'work–life balance' for Britain's working families, the New Labour government is also seeking to balance the interests of business against the needs of families. This article argues that the economic policy 'trilemma' resulting from economic globalisation is mirrored in a parallel family policy trilemma, with particular consequences for the poorest families. Drawing upon this argument and, partly, upon illustrative evidence from a small-scale qualitative study of low-income working families, it is suggested that promoting family friendly employment alongside a policy of welfare-to-work cannot reasonably be achieved without significant additional regulation of low-paying employers.