Suchergebnisse

This book investigates how paid care work and employment are being transformed by policies of social care individualisation in the context of new gig economies of care. Drawing on a case study of the creation of a new individualised care market under Australias National Disability Insurance Scheme the book provides important insights into possible futures for social care employment where care is treated as an individual consumer service. Bringing together sociological, political science and socio-legal approaches the book demonstrates how, in individualised care markets and with ineffective labour laws, risks of business and employment are devolved to frontline care workers. The book argues for an urgent re-evaluation of current policy approaches to care and for new regulatory approaches to protect workers in diverse forms of employment. Fiona Macdonald is a senior research fellow at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Her research has centred on the impacts of changing labour markets and employment arrangements, combining ethnographic studies with regulatory and policy analyses.

It's not all longing looks across the dining room from that high-class gentleman! Life as a Victorian servant was tough, tough, tough! Discover the bizarre and oh-so-strict rules one had to keep to when serving the dignitaries in 'Victorian Servants: A Very Peculiar History'. Rise up through the ranks from washerwoman to housemaid to ladies' maid and beyond, but mind you don't keep any 'followers', as boyfriends are immoral and are strictly not allowed! While you wait on hand and foot from 5

Research has identified 'personalised risks' for workers due to changes in the public/private dimensions of care where workers are directly employed or engaged by care users in individualised care systems. Drawing on interviews with workers in Australia's new individualised disability services market, the research explores personalised risk and the effects of involvement in personalised care relationships of market-based organisations, including online digital care platforms. It finds that rather than having a protective role, both digital platforms and employing organisations can increase risks for workers in individualised care relationships.

AbstractThis article offers one possible answer to the question "What is the future of feminist political science?" by outlining and defending an expansionist agenda that is centred on challenging the male-female binary that has been upheld and replicated in the discipline to date. Such an approach draws heavily on the insights of intersectional analyses, transgender, queer and gender-fluid articulations of identity and requires that the field of political science investigate the varied and complex gendered experiences of "men." Overall, this article argues that such as expansionist agenda is key to responding to the interrelated challenges presented by the perceived "crisis" of feminism and the ongoing "masculinity" of the discipline of political science.

Abstract.This article addresses the impact of the current neoliberal political context for Indigenous governance in Canada. While some observers have argued correctly that the neoliberal context provides new opportunities or points of entry in the political opportunity structure for "self-government" initiatives (Helvin, 2006; Scott, 2006; Slowey, 2008), I examine to what extent recent decentralizing initiatives, generally viewed as "concessions" made by the state to meet the demands of Indigenous peoples, must be evaluated as part of a broader governmental strategy of neoliberalism. This strategy is not simply about meeting the demands of Indigenous peoples but also about meeting the requirements of the contemporary governmental shift towards "privatization" within liberal democratic states. As such, I argue that certain manifestations of Indigenous self-government are vulnerable to criticisms launched against practices of privatization, practices which include a variety of policies designed to promote a shifting of contentious issues out of the public sphere and thereby limiting public debate and collective—that is, state—responsibility.Résumé.Le présent article analyse d'un oeil critique l'impact du contexte politique néolibéral actuel sur la gouvernance autochtone au Canada. Certains auteurs ont avancé avec raison que le contexte néolibéral donnait aux peuples autochtones de nouveaux points d'entrée pour leurs initiatives d'autogouvernance (Helvin, 2006; Scott, 2006; Slowey, 2008). Toutefois, j'examine ici dans quelle mesure les tentatives récentes de décentralisation, souvent comprises comme des «concessions» faites par l'État pour répondre aux revendications des peuples autochtones, doivent être évaluées dans le cadre plus vaste d'une stratégie de néolibéralisme du gouvernement. Cette stratégie ne vise pas uniquement à répondre aux besoins des peuples autochtones, mais aussi à permettre au gouvernement de s'orienter vers la «privatisation» qui distingue l'État libéral démocratique contemporain. À ce titre, je soutiens que certaines manifestations d'autogouvernance des Autochtones peuvent se prêter aux mêmes critiques que les pratiques de privatisation, qui comprennent diverses politiques visant à retirer de la place publique certains sujets controversés afin de limiter le débat public et la responsabilité collective, c'est-à-dire celle de l'État.

In recent decades, group autonomy approaches to multiculturalism have gained legitimacy within both academic and policy circles. This article examines the centrality of group autonomy in the multiculturalism debate, particularly in the highly influential approach of Will Kymlicka. I argue that his response to the dilemmas of liberal-democratic multiculturalism relies on an underdeveloped conceptualization of group autonomy. Despite presumably good intentions, his narrow notion of cultural group autonomy obscures the requirements of minority group members' democratic capabilities and thereby works against the kind of transformative change that "accommodated" groups are seeking from the state. Although some critics (Young 1990; Benhabib 2002) have gone so far as to reject autonomy-based approaches to accommodation altogether (Young 1990, 251), I suggest that this position goes too far. In response, I offer an intermediary position between those that defend and those that reject an autonomy-based approach. Instead of fully rejecting autonomy as a guiding principle for multiculturalism, I develop an ethics of care approach to group autonomy based on relationality, which addresses the inadequacies of the dominant approach to multiculturalism. Such an account of group autonomy is a vital step toward reconciling multiculturalism with the necessary components of liberal-democratic citizenship.