Contemporary news events indicate the continuing relevance of moral panic analysis. Of two versions one is British, formulated by Stan Cohen, exemplified by the 1970s emergence of mugging. The second is American, formulated by Goode and Ben‐Yehuda, exemplified by the 1980s missing children campaign. Each model conceptualises the agents and dynamics of moral panics, their causes and consequences. The models have been applied mainly to seven main areas: AIDS, child abuse, drugs, immigration, media violence, street crime and youth deviance. Empirical data have confirmed basic features of the original models and enabled generalisations about the presence and functions of moral panics in capitalist democracies. Critics express reservations about the models’ ambiguous terminology, assumptions of media effects, predetermined dynamics, and vague outcomes. Some advocate revision of the models, others their abandonment. Future development of moral panic analysis requires connection to three important sociological themes: discourse, risk and moral regulation.
A challenge for social policy makers is to explore consensus and dissensus in issues where approaches such as roundtable meetings and focus groups are not feasible or likely to provide accurate information. The Delphi survey technique is a powerful tool for exploring social policy issues not as widely used as it deserves. This article explores Delphi and describes its application to a major and highly contentious public policy issue; how the electricity supply industry should respond to customers in debt. Our experience demonstrates how expertise and opinions of individuals who either would not or could not normally cooperate can be brought together to achieve a consensus, resulting in policy changes that lead to measurable social welfare gains. It illustrates Delphi's strength as a policy tool that recognizes the multiplicity of interests involved in such issues, the value of different kinds of front-line expertise and the desirability of proceeding on the basis of a consensus of informed opinion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.