The Development of Welfare States: The Production of Plausible Accounts

Abstract

This article is intended to extend our previous analysis (Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 2, Part 3, July 1973) of explanations of the development of social policy. Some problems associated with the preparation of historical accounts are examined and we proceed to review the value of international comparisons of welfare developments as a device for avoiding some of these problems. We look at some examples of studies that have utilized international comparisons and the problems involved in attempting such studies. Our conclusion is that the use of the comparative method is valuable, not because it enables us to get any nearer the truth about welfare developments, but rather because the range of plausible explanations that it will generate makes us more aware of the variety of perspectives on welfare activities that can exist and of the multitude of value-systems that are embodied in these perspectives.

The Changing Face of Social Administration

“…There is a distinct possibility that, within the broader discipline of Social Policy, CSA will become dominated by those who, despite a laudable degree of methodological sophistication and related skills, will be less inclined to challenge what Galbraith (1958) famously termed the ‘conventional wisdom’. Furthermore, there is also a danger that the emphasis on disinterested research and policy analysis will, inadvertently or otherwise, serve to conceal the value choices that lie at the heart of social policy (Titmuss 1974; Carrier and Kendall 1977).…”

Social administration revisited: Traditions of observational fieldwork and their value

“…During the 1970s social administration saw calls for greater theoretical engagement and also greater comparativism. Academics such as Pinker (, ), Carrier and Kendall (, ), Warham () and George and Wilding () called for a shift in emphasis away from studying administration micro‐details and towards greater incorporation of new and diverse ideas from sociology, economics and politics, though notably sociologists including T. H. Marshall and W. G. Runciman, economists such as C. A. R. Crosland and political scientists including W. A. Robson were already highly influential in the field . Detailed discussion of ways in which social policy and administration as an academic subject subsequently grew and changed is beyond the scope of this article .…”

Ten years on: Francis G. Castles and the Australian 'wage-earners' welfare state'

“…The 'positivist' disposition has been the object of robust criticism within the field of comparative social policy studies by sceptical empiricists (Carrier and Kendall 1973;1977), although some of its devotees remain unconvinced ; Bolderson (1988: 272), for example, persists in arguing for an equivalence between 'comparative method and the controlled experiment in the natural sciences'. There is also the deconstruction of those narratives reliant on 'forces' and 'structures' as part of what is called the 'social theory' produced by post-structuralists.…”