Suchergebnisse

In the 1970s and early 1980s, discussions of social justice in the social science literature focused largely on social class. The implicit assumption of much of the literature was that a more just society would be achieved through the reduction of inequalities in the distribution of economic and social resources. Since then, there has been a growing focus on plural aspects of social justice. Many writers now distinguish between distributive, cultural and associational aspects of social justice. However, the different implications of these facets of social justice for different groups, and potential tensions between them, have rarely been adequately recognised. Given New Labour's focus on social justice, and its belief that attaining greater social justice is compatible with achieving greater efficiency in the public sector, there is a need to examine more closely the understandings of social justice underpinning a range of policy initiatives.

Social justice is a policy aim of the UK Labour government. This paper considers the applicability of the concept to disability, seeking to establish principles for conceptualising social justice and disability and considering the nature of the challenges for public policy and society posed by this conceptualisation. The paper considers how disability is implicated in two types of claims about the source of social injustice: those concerned with socially constructed differences between people; and those arising from material inequalities. Appropriate values underpinning alternative conceptions of social justice are discussed and tensions in policymaking considered.

BEFRIENDING IS A VALUED form of support for people in receipt of community care services, and offers something which is qualitatively different from the support which paid staff can give. This paper, based on recent research, explores the perspectives of users and reports on some of the problems facing befriending organisations.

In 2002 the UK Home Office commissioned a review of research on community involvement in area-based initiatives. This found comparatively few studies that set out to measure the impact rather than the extent and nature of involvement and hence few answers to the question of what works. This article takes that finding as its starting point and sets out to develop a more robust framework for evaluating the impact of community involvement. It notes the difficulties inherent in using a classic experimental design to evaluate processes as complex as community involvement and proposes a theory-based approach. To this end, it critically reviews the underlying theoretical claims of both community involvement and of area-based initiatives. An evaluation framework is then developed in which the potential benefits of greater involvement are considered for each stage of the process of developing an area-based initiative and positive and negative contextual factors are identified.

Community involvement is seen both as means and as ends in contemporary urban policy, and although increasingly popular with policymakers it is not universally welcomed. Incredulous opponents assert that it does not improve the position of poor people and that it distracts attention from structural inequalities, whereas sceptical believers hold that it boosts social cohesion, and improves the position of powerless groups. The authors provide a framework for understanding these conflicting accounts of the processes and impact of community involvement in area-based initiatives (ABIs). They draw on a review of the relevant literature commissioned by the Home Office. The work is grounded in theories of democracy that claim both developmental and instrumental benefits for participants. A third rationale is found in 'due process' claims for involvement as a fundamental right. This framework suggests that answering questions about what works in community involvement in ABIs requires an empirical focus on aims, processes, and effects. The evidence shows that believers are justified in being sceptical but optimistic, and that opponents will remain incredulous in the light of weaknesses in the practice and outcomes of community involvement in ABIs. The authors conclude by discussing the implications for policy and future research.