Search results

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Lists of figures -- List of tables -- List of contributors -- Foreword -- Acknowledgements -- Acronyms and abbreviations -- Introduction -- Part 1 Setting the scene -- 1 Discourses shaping development, foreign aid, and poverty reduction policies in Africa: implications for social work -- 2 Has social work come of age? Revisiting the authentisation debate 25 years on -- Part 2 Established areas of practice -- 3 Social work practice in Lesotho's Ministry of Social Development -- 4 Social work and social protection in Ghana

This paper traces the trajectory of my thinking on social development shaped, initially, by the huge changes that swept South Africa in the 1990s. It describes my early focus on discerning what the policy-driven changes to a developmental welfare system meant for social work and the subsequent critical turn, as social development proved extremely difficult to translate to practice. It traces the changes in my thinking on coming to Australia in 1999, when the country was undergoing a period of massive welfare reform, firmly embedding neoliberal privatization policy. In reflecting on switching concepts in the social development discourse, the discussion turns to its embrace of neoliberalism. Thereafter, it considers three models to highlight the turn from centralized planning, which held the government responsible for social development, to social enterprise, which divested government of its responsibility, and a critical development model that linked national policy to the wider international system. Noting critiques of neoliberal social development, the discussion ends with the current trajectory of my thinking outlined in a critical model for developmental practice with the core foci being the structural–political, cultural–contextual, critical–developmental, and environmental–spiritual dimensions of social development.

This article takes an in-depth look at the strengths perspective, examining its philosophical roots, its core characteristics (according to its key proponents), and its limitations. It suggests that the strengths perspective is underpinned by a mix of Aristotelianism, humanistic individualism, and communitarianism. The article highlights the synergies between the strengths perspective and contemporary neoliberalism and suggests the need to go back to basics to achieve some distance from the harsher aspects of welfare reform policy, which affect most domains of social work practice. It ends with some suggestions as to how the limitations of the strengths perspective might be addressed, in order to devise a more complete theory for social work practice.

Gray M. Social development and the status quo: professionalisation and Third Way co‐optationInt J Soc Welfare 2010: 19: 463–470 © 2010 The Author(s), Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and International Journal of Social Welfare.Social development is a massive undertaking that has spawned a multitude of organisational forms. It nevertheless remains an ambiguous term and ill‐defined area of work, though some social development practitioners have succeeded in making small‐scale local differences in particular situations. While largely a tool of the status quo, some believe that social development has transformative potential and provides valuable space to confront inequalities and deprivation. In this article, I argue that in contemporary neoliberal environments social development is being co‐opted by Third Way politics and professionalisation processes. As it professionalises through the creation of professional structures and educational systems, it is becoming increasingly like social work, despite arguments that it is as an alternative approach to poverty and social exclusion. In the process, it is losing its transformative, critical edge, and morphing into a neoliberal, social investment approach that absolves government of its responsibility for the welfare of citizens.

In a recent article published in International Social Work, two writers from Mainland China — Huang Yunong and Zhang Xiong — presented an insightful analysis into indigenization in social work. This article responds to some of the issues and challenges they raise and, in so doing, outlines some diverse views on indigenization in contemporary social work literature.

In this article I persist with my argument that indigenous, local, culturally relevant practice ought to trump the external imposition of social work definitions, standards and professional models. The challenge, however, is not to fall prey to false dichotomies. Importantly, social work in China is not static but emergent, and no‐one is sure of the exact shape it will take. And the essential question is to what extent will Western knowledge and standards be uncritically appropriated into China? Most contributors to the debate thus far have taken the international definition of social work as their starting point, but far more significant are the political dimensions involved in this process of indigenisation. This article proposes that empirical evidence from within China regarding culturally appropriate, effective local responses – and some clear benchmarks for international engagement – should form the basis for dialogue between China and the broader social work community.

In 1998, James Midgley issued a challenge for scholars to provide a systematic description and examination of the South African experience in implementing social development. This article attempts to meet this challenge by examining the progress of developmental welfare or social development in the first ten years of South Africa's transition to democracy under African National Congress (ANC) rule. In this article it is argued that because social development marries social and economic goals, one cannot evaluate developmental welfare or social development without examining shifts in economic policy. Thus, it also examines economic policy transitions from development, to growth, to black economic empowerment. It shows how social security has become the major poverty alleviation measure within the developmental welfare system. It acknowledges that it is tough for developmental welfare to succeed in an economic system that promotes gross income disparities and a widening gap between rich and poor. Social development needs widespread institutional support to succeed and this is unlikely to be forthcoming while there is high unemployment, low economic growth and insufficient foreign investment. However, this state of affairs is unlikely to change as long as the government intervenes in the economy, promotes black economic empowerment and centralises decision‐making.

This article explores current paradoxical processes in inter‐national social work concerning the global diffusion of the social work profession's principles, values and practice methods or approaches. Some criticise these activities on the grounds that they are imperialistic. Others advocate strongly for the indigenisation of social work. Still others believe in social work's universality. This article attempts to stimulate debate on, and promote greater understanding of, and mutual respect for, divergent views on these critical questions. It puts forward the notion that culture is an important consideration that enables indigenisation, retains universals yet avoids imperialism.