From Clinton to Blair: The Democratic (Party) Origins of Welfare to Work

King, Desmond; Wickham‐Jones, Mark

doi:10.1111/1467-923x.00205

Cited by 132 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These remain core commitments of the neo-liberal strategy, although in practice they are modulated in different ways through their encounters with particular national political-cultural formations (Clarke, forthcoming a; Kingfisher, 2002). Here, I will be focussing on the UK during the last twenty-five years, but a UK understood as part of shifting geo-political alignments, not least in its articulation with the USA and Europe (see also Garland, 2002;King, 1999;King and Wickham-Jones, 1998).…”

Section: Against the Publicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissolving the Public Realm? The Logics and Limits of Neo-liberalism

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the changing fortunes of the public realm during the last two decades. It poses the problem of how we think about globalisation and neo-liberalism as forces driving these changes. It then examines how different aspects of the public realm -understood as public interest, as public services and as a collective identity -have been subjected to processes of dissolution. Different processes have combined in this dissolution -in particular, attempts to privatise and marketise public services have been interleaved with attempts to de-politicise the public realm. Tracing these processes reveals that they have not been wholly successfulencountering resistances, refusals and negotiations that mean the outcomes (so far) do not match the world imagined in neo-liberal fantasies.For many, the development of a robust and vigorous public realm was one of the defining features of Western capitalist democracies: a core element of 'welfare capitalism' in its many varieties (Esping-Andersen, 1990;Huber and Stephens, 2001). At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the public realm looks rather less robust. Here I examine the dissolution of the public realm -and how to think about the forces seeking to dissolve it. This focus on the public realm is rather wider than the question of 'welfare states', although they overlap in important ways. I will be using the term 'public' to refer to a number of intersecting social phenomena: the idea of a 'public interest' which may require forms of collectivised expression; the institutionalisation of 'public services' (as a means of meeting the public's needs); and the conception of a public -a collective (usually national) body that is capable of having interests and needs. In various ways, these aspects of a public realm have been challenged in the name of the 'private', bringing about what John Baldock has called the 'declining publicness of public services ' (2003: 68). I will argue that globalisation and neo-liberalism have been identified as two of the core forces in the process of dissolving the public. I will also be arguing that the dominant views of these forces tend to overstate their scope and effects, while ignoring their uneven and unfinished character.But first it is important to say a little more about these conceptions of the public realm. Our understandings of the public realm rest on a dichotomous 28 john clarke distinction between the public and the private. Much debated, this distinction tends to cohere around the poles of private-as-individual/familial/domestic, and public-as-market/state/politics/bureaucracy (see, for example, Landes, 1998;Ribbens McCarthy and Edwards, 2002;Slater, 1998). It will already be clear that these clusters are not the same as the distinction between state and market that has been prominent in social policy. Indeed, the market has a tendency to be categorised as both private and public in different ways of drawing the distinction between the public and private. So, in contrast to the private as familial/domestic, t...

show abstract

Section: Against the Publicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissolving the Public Realm? The Logics and Limits of Neo-liberalism

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Employment practices in both Britain and Germany have become increasingly commodifying and, in Desmond King's analysis of British schemes, illiberal (King 1995, 1999, King and Wickham-Jones 1999, Bleses and Seeleib-Kaiser 2004, Clasen and Clegg 2004. In comparative perspective, British welfare-to-work initiatives offer poor training opportunities and low benefits.…”

Section: Transformation Of the Welfare State In Britain And Germany 369mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Path-Breaking Change: The Transformation of the Welfare State in Britain and Germany

Ross

2008

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowhere is the concept of path dependence more entrenched than with regard to the welfare state and its component institutions. Esping-Andersen's influential conception of three welfare paths remains the dominant paradigm for understanding social policy regimes. Drawing on the cases of Britain and Germany, this paper argues that path-breaking change is occurring in mature welfare states. These transformations, however, are not explained by path dependence theory, as rigorously formulated in terms of increasing returns, for at least four reasons: pathbreaking change has not been delivered by an unpredictable event; multiple alternative paths have not been available to policy makers at the point of change; ageing institutions have not strengthened through increasing returns over the past two decades; and critical actors have not reinforced old welfare paths.

show abstract

“…There are economic, social and moral arguments that, for those able to work, 'work is the best form of welfare' (2,3) and is the most effective way to improve the well-being of these individuals, their families and their communities. Moreover, for people who have experienced poor mental health maintaining, or returning to, employment can also be a vital element in the recovery process, helping to build self-esteem, confidence and social inclusion (4).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%