1.

The subject of social policy

Pete Alcock

What Do We Study?
The study of social policy is a one of the
academic social sciences. It is different to
other areas of social science such as sociology, economics and politics, however, because it is based upon a distinct empirical
focus - support for the well-being of citizens provided through social action, as discussed in more detail by Angus Erskine in
chapter 1.2. Nevertheless, as Erskine also
discusses, social policy draws on the methods used and the understanding developed
within these other areas of social science.
Thus, although on the one hand we can see
social policy as a discrete academic discipline, which is studied and developed in its
own right; on the other we can recognize
that it is also an interdisciplinaryfield, drawing on and developing links with other cognate disciplines at every stage and
overlapping at times with these in terms of
both empirical foci and methods of analysis. To put this another way, the boundaries between social policy and other social
science subjects are porous, and shifting;
and students and practitioners of social
policy may also be working within or alongside these other areas or cooperating closely
with others who do.
The term 'social policy' is not only used
to refer to academic study, however; it is
also used to refer to the social actions taken
by policy-makers in the real world. So social policy refers both to the activity of
policy-making to promote well-being and

to the academic study of such actions. This

may seem a bit confusiog at first - whereas
sociology students study society, social
policy students study social policy - but it is
a confusion that we all soon learn to live
with.
This confusion is also true of the discipline
versus interdisciplinary field debate referred
to aboye. The subject of social policy has the
core features of an academic discipline, with
its own theoretical debates and empirical
foci, and it is recognized as such in the management and planning of higher education
in the UK. At the same time, however, the
study of social policy is developed and extended through interdisciplinary collaboration. This may seem odd in principle; but it
is not a problem in practice. Thus students
studying social policy may well find themselves in the same departments, or on the
same degree programmes, as others studying different subjects such as sociology; or
they may be studying social policy as part
of professional education and training, for
instance in social work. This variety and collaboration are to be welcomed, and students
on these different courses will learn much
from each other through learning together;
but this does not mean that social policy can
be subsumed within sociology or social
work. Similarly, those engaged in social
policy research often work alongside others
such as economists, or statisticians; but the
focus of their concern is distinct - on investigating the development or delivery of

THE SUBJECT OF SOCIAL POLICY

PETE ALCOCK

policy, rather than on economic modeling

(as economists) or data analysis (as statisticians).
Some of these links and overlaps with cognate areas of study and some of the implications of these for the study of social policy
are explored in more detail in Part 11, where
we examine the values and the perspectives
which underlie social policy. And, as May
discusses in chapter 1.3, although social
policy is studied as a discrete subject within
the UK, this is not the case in all other advanced welfare capitalist countries, where
significant differences in both the practice
and the study of social policy can be found.
However, we will not discuss these more
general issues any further here, rather we
will move on to look at the development of
social policy as an academic subject in the
UK, for it has a particularly interesting history, involving even a change of name from
social administration to social policy.

The Development of Social

Policy
The development of social policy can be
traced back a hundred years or so to the
end of the nineteenth century. This is because it is closely linked to the development
of the Fabian Society and to the influence of
Fabian politics on policy development in
Britain. The Fabian Society was established
in 1884, and was strongly influenced by the
work of Sidney Webb, a civil servant who
later became a Labour MP. It developed
critical analysis of the social and economic
problems found in late-nineteenth-century
British capitalism and campaigned for the
introduction of social protection through
the state to combat these. Fabian politics
were closely linked to the establishment
and growth of the Labour Party in Britain,
which Webb and others saw as the political vehicle through which policy innovation and reform could be achieved. The
early development of Fabian social policy
thinking also drew on new research evidence emerging from some of the earliest
empirical studies of social problems in the

country by people like Booth and Rowntree,

whose research revealed that the extent and
depth of poverty in Britain at the end of the
nineteenth century was both serious and
widespread. Booth and Rowntree's work
challenged conservative political assumptions that economic markets could meet the
welfare needs of all. The Fabians used this
to argue that policy intervention through
the state was needed to provide those forros
of support and protection which markets
could not; and in the new Labour Party they
saw a potential base for securing the political power to implement these changes.
In fact, of course, it was some time before
the Labour Party did achieve political power
in Britain, and important reforms were introduced before this by the Liberal governments of the early twentieth century. The
context for these reforms was influenced significantly by a review of the Poor Laws, the
mainstay of nineteenth-century welfare
policy, by a Royal Commission established
in 1905. The work of the commission was an
i mportant step in the development of debate
about social policy reform in Britain, in part
because the commissioners themselves
could not agree on the right way forward
and so produced two separate reports:

a Minority Report, which was largely the

work of Beatrice Webb, married to
Sidney and herself a prominent Fabian;
a Majority Report, which was largely the
work of Helen Bosanquet, who with her
husband Bernard were leading figures
in the Charity Organisation Society
(COS), a body which coordinated voluntary action to relieve poverty.

Interestingly both reports stressed the peed

for policy reform to improve welfare provision; but, whilst the minority Fabian report
saw the public provision of state services as
the means of achieving this, the majority
COS report envisaged a continuing central
role for voluntary philanthropic activity.
This debate about the balance between state
and non-state provision of welfare continued to influence the development of social
policy throughout the rest of the twentieth

century, as the chapters in Part III of this

book reveal; and the concem to secure the
appropriate mix between public and voluntary provision remains a key element in social policy planning at the beginning of the
twenty-first century.
What is particularly significant for our
purposes about the policy debate between
the Webbs and the Bosanquets, however, is
that this did not only influence the development of social policy reform, but extended
also into the study and evaluation of policy
as it developed. Despite their political differences both the Webbs and the Bosanquets
were concerned to promote the study of social policy as well as the development of
welfare reform. And this took concrete form
with the establishment by the Webbs of the
London School of Economics (LSE) and the
incorporation within it of the COS's School
of Sociology to form a new Department of
Social Sciences and Administration in 1912.
This was the first, and most important, base
for the study of social policy. Its first new
lecturer was Clement Attlee (later Prime
Minister in the reforming Labour government after the Second World War); and later
members included Beveridge (architect of
the modern social security system), Tawney
(who developed theoretical analysis of poverty and inequality) and T. H. Marshall
(whose idea of 'social citizenship' has been
used by many as a theoretical basis for understanding the development of social policy
in modern society).
The LSE has continued since then to provide the leading base for the study and evaluation of social policy. In 1950 they appointed
Richard Titmuss as the first Professor of Social Administration in the UK. Titmuss's appointment was significant. Although he
himself had no formal academic qualifications he had already established a reputation
for his detailed analysis of social services in
wartime Britain, and during his 23 years at
the LSE he became a leading figure in the academic study of social policy throughout the
developed world. Titmuss's major contributions to the development of the study of social policy have now been collected together

in a single volume (see further reading), and

his writing remains at the centre of academic
debates about theory and practice today.
However, Titmuss also attracted to the LSE
a range of other major social policy scholars,
including Brian Abel-Smith and Peter
Townsend (who revitalized research into
poverty and inequality in the 1960s) and Tony
Atkinson (who developed the economic
analysis of social policy). Some of the contributors to this Companion come from the
LSE's current Department of Social Policy and
Administration or from its research centres;
but the study of social policy has now extended much further than this. In the 1950s a
Chair was also created at Birmingham and
over the last fifty years social policy teaching
and research has spread to most other universities in Britain, and has been taken up
much more widely in schools and colleges
too. There are also major research centres in
a number of universities, and other independent agencies and think-tanks providing specialist research and consultancy in particular
fields or from different perspectives.
What is more, as we shall see shortly, this
wider development of teaching and research has promoted debate and controversy over the aims and methods of study
and over the direction of, and priorities for,
research and policy reform - and this has
provided a challenge to the Fabianism
which dominated debate within social
policy until the 1970s.

Much of the early teaching of social

policy was geared to the training of social workers and others to act as providers within existing welfare services
- it was focused upon how to administer welfare, rather than upon what welfare should be administered.
Much of the early research work concentrated on measuring poverty and other
social problems in order to provide evidence of the need for policy intervention
- it was focused upon measurement of
social need, rather than upon definitions
of need or debate about the appropriateness of seeking to respond to it.

These broader questions became much

more important as social policy expanded
and developed in the latter quarter of the
twentieth century. However, in the middle
of the century such questions seemed to a
large extent to be answered by the introduction of a 'welfare state' by the Labour
government of 1945-51. At this stage the
debate about the direction of reform appeared to have been won conclusively by
the Fabian supporters of state welfare, and
the focus of academic study upon the training of state welfare workers and the empirical measurement of new welfare needs
appeared to have been established as the
orthodoxy for all.

The Welfare State and the

Welfare Consensus

written about the Five Giant Social Evils

which had undermined British society before the war: ignorance, disease, idleness,
squalor and want. He argued that it was in
the interests of all citizens to remove these
evils from British society, and it was the
duty of the state, as the representative body
of all citizens, to act to do this.
,
In the years following the war, comprehensive state provision to combat each was
introduced:

The most important development in social

policy during the twentieth century, and
the most important feature of it for academic study, was the creation of what has
come to be called the welfare state in the
years immediately following the Second
World War. In fact, of course, the depiction
of these reforms as a welfare state is to some
extent a controversial and contested analysis. It begs questions about what we mean
by this and why these particular reforms
should be seen as achieving it; and these
questions are matters of significant debate
and disagreement. Nevertheless, the postwar welfare state thesis has been widely
promulgated - and for important and obvious reasons.
Part of the reason for the electoral success
of the Labour government in 1945 was its
manifesto commitment to introduce state
provision to meet major welfare needs - and
to do this on a comprehensive basis, replacing the piecemeal and partial provision
which had been developed in the earlier part
of the century. This message had been prefigured in Beveridge's famous report on the
neeo for comprehensive social security reform, published in 1942 and included in
Labour's manifesto promises. Beveridge had

free education up to age 15 (later 16), to

combat ignorance;
a national health service (NHS) free at
the point of use, to combat disease;
state commitment to securing full employment, to combat idleness;
public housing for all citizens to rent, to
combat squalor;
national insurance benefits for all in
need, to combat want.

All of these required the development of

major state services for citizens and they resulted in a major extension of state responsibility - and state expenditure. Many of the
reforms were enacted by the post-war Labour government; but despite their Fabian
roots they were not supported only by Labour. Indeed, the state education plans had
been introduced by a Conservative member of the coalition government (R. A.
Butler) in 1944, and the Conservative governments of the 1950s supported the spirit
of the reforms and maintained their basic
structure. This cross-party consensus on
state welfare was so strong that it even acquired an acronym - Butskellism - comprised of the names of the Labour
Chancellor (Gaitskell) and his Conservative
successor (Butler).
For Fabian social policy, therefore, the
post-war welfare state could be seen as the
culmination of academic and political influence on government, and after this analysis
and debate focused more on the problems
of how to administer and improve existing
state welfare than on the question of whether
these were appropriate mechanisms for the
social promotion of well-being. However,

narrow Fabian focus within post-war

this
social policy did not last for long. It was soon
under challenge from other perspectives
which queried both the success and the desirability of state welfare.

Tneoretical Pluralism
From the 1970s onwards the focus of social
policy began to move beyond the narrow
confines of Fabian welfare statism. This was
symbolized most dramatically by a change
in the narre of the academic subject from
social administration to social policy. In fact
both terms had been used to some extent
interchangeably before then (most notably
by Titmuss himself) and the difference between the two has never been a hard and
fast one. However at its 1987 annual meeting the professional association (then the
Social Administration Association) agreed
to change its narre, primarily because it was
felt that social administration was associated
too closely with a focus largely upon analysis of the operation of existing welfare services, whereas social policy encompassed also
a more general concern with analysis of the
political and ideological bases of welfare
provision. And to some extent this change
was representative of more general trends
within academic and political debate to
embrace a wider range of conflicting perspectives challenging the orthodoxy of Fabianism, and to move academic study
towards a more open theoretical pluralism
in which questions of whether or why to
pursue state welfare became more important than questions of how or when.

The New Left

The predominant focus of Fabianism on the
success and desirability of state welfare was challenged in the 1960s and 1970s
by critics on the left. Drawing on Marxist
analysis of capitalist society, they argued
that welfare services had not replaced the
exploitative relationships of the labour
market; and that, although they had provided some benefits for the poor and the

working class, these services had also

helped to support future capitalist development by providing a secure base for the
market economy to operate. Unlike the Fabian socialists of the early twentieth century, these New Left critics did not
necessarily see the further expansion of the
existing state welfare base of social policy
as resolving this dilemma; rather they argued that changes would be needed in the
economic structure of capital and labour if
well-being was to be promoted successfully
for all. For the New Left, therefore, state
welfare was in a constant state of contradiction, or conflict, between the pressure to
meet the welfare needs of citizens and the
pressure to support the growth of capitalist economic markets.

The New Right

In the 1970s and 1980s rather different criticisms of state welfare began to appear from
the right of the political spectrum. Rightwing proponents of free market capitalism,
most notably Hayek, had been critical of the
creation of the welfare state in the 1940s, but
at the time these had been marginal voices
in academic and political debate (see chapter I1.6). In the 1970s, as the advent of economic recession revealed some of the
limitations of state welfare, these voices becarne both more vocal and more widely supported - especially alter the move to the right
of the Conservative Party following the election of Margaret Thatcher as leader in 1975.
The essence of the New Right critique is that
the development of extensive state welfare
services is incompatible with the maintenance of a successful market economy, and
that this problem will get worse as welfare
expands to meet more and more social
needs. Therefore, social needs must be met
in other ways and state welfare withdrawn
or removed - as was attempted to some extent by the Thatcherite governments of the
1980s through their policies of privatization
and marketisation. For the New Right, therefore, the desirability of state welfare itself is
called into question.

New social movements

The failings and limitations of state welfare
also carne under challenge in the late twentieth century from perspectives outside the
traditional left/right political spectrum (see
chapter 11.14). Most significant here was the
challenge of feminism and its analysis of
the unequal treatment of men and women
in the development and delivery of welfare
services. As feminists point out, the provision of welfare is'gendered'. Other critical
perspectives have also challenged traditional analysis of state welfare and Nave
suggested that the study of social policy
should address a range of social divisions
and social issues which are generally ignored in debates which focus only on the
extent and desirability of public welfare
provision. Anti-racists have pointed out
that some welfare services can be discriminatory and exclusive and can act to reinforce social divisions within society;
disability campaigners have suggested that
the needs of certain social groups can be
systematically ignored; and environmentalists have argued that existing service provision is in any case predicated upon trends
in economic development which cannot be
sustained over the longer term.

The new pragmatism

The new radical voices which began to influence social policy towards the end of the
twentieth century have widely varying, and
sometimes mutually conflicting, implications. They challenge state welfare and the
orthodoxy of Fabianism, but they are also
critical of the New Left and the New Right,
as can be seen in more detail in some of the
chapters in Part II. And at the beginning of
the twenty-first century these differing perspectives have resulted in a theoretical pluralism which has not only transformed
academic study but has also shifted the focus of policy-making itself. The Labour governments of the new century have openly
eschewed the policy programmes of the
Fabian left and the New Right, and have

appealed instead for a 'third way' for social policy - between the state and the market. There is much debate about what is
meant by this new third way politics (see
chapter 11.10); but its embracement of the
legacy of theoretical pluralism has meant
that, in seeking to recognize and respond
to differing demands and perspectives, it
has invoked a more pragmatic approach to
policy planning - captured in the phrase
'what counts is what works'.
This new pragmatism is more concerned
with the process and outcome of policy
planning than with the principies upon
which different forms of provision are
based (private and public welfare are
openly combined), and it has led to an emphasis on regulation and evaluation which
is reminiscent in some ways of the heyday
of social administration. However it has not
displaced a concern with principie, as well
as practice, within the academic study of
social policy; and this has been fuelled too
by other developments which have broadened the base of study and analysis.

Geographical Boundaries
Another challenge to the focus on state welfare in social policy has come from critics
who Nave argued that a concentration on
the national services of the early post-war
period has ignored the importance of the
local base of much welfare provision in Britain, and the impact of international and
supranational pressures on policy development within this country and others.
The central/local divide in the development and delivery of social policy has always
been a feature of the policy agenda, and even
in reforms of the 1940s responsibility for
major welfare services such as education,
social care and housing remained largely in
local hands. More recently, however, the
appropriate balance between central and
local control of services has become an important focus of research and analysis - and
has also become a site of political debate and
conflict, as discussed in chapter I11.6. This is
a conflict which cannot easily be resolved

and these are arguments on both sides of the

central /local debate; but it is a debate which
rnust be addressed by all serious students
of social policy.
The impact of international forces on
policy development and debate in Britain is
also not really a new development. Titmuss
was a leading promoter, and practitioner, of
international and comparative policy analysis. However, the increasingly globalised
nature of economic and political activity has
placed ever greater pressure on national
policy planning, and analysis, as discussed
in chapter 11.18; and this is accentuated by
the increasingly powerful influence which
major international agencies now wield over
policy debate, as we see in chapter 111.9.
Moreover the international context of British social policy has been altered significantly over the past three decades by
Britain's membership of the European Union (EU); and, as discussed in chapter 111.8,
the supranational powers of the EU now
mean that policy planning in Brussels can
directly affect policy practice within Britain.
The study of social policy can thus no longer
be contained within the geographical and
political confines of one state. This mean
that the study of social policy must recognize and respond to this international policy
order too, and it is for these reasons, among
others, that comparative analysis has become an essential feature of both study and
research, as May explains in chapter 1.3.

The Future of Social Policy

At the beginning of the twenty-first century,
therefore, social policy has developed from
its Fabian roots at the LSE and its support
for the welfare state reforms of the early
Post-war years to embrace a wide range of
diverse - and conflicting - theoretical debates about both the value and the success
of public welfare provision and a wider
conceptualization of the policy context as
the product of local and global action as
well as national politics. Social policy is now
characterized by theoretical and geographical pluralism. It is also characterized by

'welfare pluralism': the recognition, as discussed in the chapters in Part 111, that state
provision is only one feature of a broader
mixture of differing forros and levels of
welfare service.
We could perhaps capture these new
pluralisms within social policy as the product of a shift in the focus of study from the
welfare state to the welfare mix - and this is a
shift which is likely to develop further in the
early years of this century. As all social scientists know social forces, and hence social
policies too, are dynamic. The legacy of the
past will continue to structure the agenda
for study in the future; but change is always
taking place. And in social policy trends for
future change are already being set:

We are moving beyond state-based welfare, to focus not only upon public services but also upon partnerships between
the state and other providers of welfare
and well-being and en the role of the
state as a subsidizer and a regulator of
the actions of others;
We are moving beyond the provider culture, to focus not only upon questions of
who provides welfare services but also
on examination of who uses and benefits
from these and how access to such benefits is determined, or prevented;
We are moving beyond provision
through redistribution, to focus not only
upon the consumption of welfare services but also upon how policy interventions can influence investment and
production, and the initial distribution
of wealth and power within society.

These changes will accentuate further the

overlap and the collaboration between social policy and the study of other cognate
subjects such as sociology, economics, politics and law. However, it is just such interdisciplinary flexibility which has always
been a central feature of the study of social
policy - that this is likely to develop and to
grow is a sign of continuing academic vitality and strength.

10

PETE ALCOCK

Cuide To Further Reading

There are no textbooks dealing with the history and development of the discipline of'
social policy - perhaps it is too boring a topic for a whole book. However, M. Bulmer, J.
Lewis and D. Piachaud (eds) The Goals of Social Policy (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989) is
an interesting review and history of the work of the leading department at the London
School of Economics (LSE). The major work of Titmuss, undoubtedly the founding father
of the subject, is now gathered together, with commentaries, in P. Alcock, H. Glennerster,
A. Oakley and A. Sinfield Welfare and Wellbeing (Bristol: Policy Press, 2001).
More recently, however, a number of authors have sought to provide introductory
guides to the discipline. The most well established is M. Hill Understanding Social Policy,
6th edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), which provides a service-based review of welfare policy.
P. Alcock Social Policy in Britain: Themes and Issues (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1996),
takes a broader approach identifying key questions of structure, context and issues - 2nd
edn. due from Palgrave in 2003. J. Baldock, N. Manning, S. Miller and S. Vickerstaff (eds)
Social Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) is a collection which covers both
contextual issues and service areas and is also being updated. K. Blakemore Social Policy:
An Introduction (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1998), uses key social policy questions to provide a different perspective on provision in different service areas. F. Williams,
Social Policy: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989), provides an alternative critical introduction which points out the way in which much traditional writing
within the discipline has underemphasized the important issues of gender and 'race'. A
collection of topical essays on UK policy issues is provided by N. Ellison and C. Pearson
Developments in British Social Policy (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1998), to be updated
in 2003. Finally the Social Policy Association also produce an annual collection of topical
essays, Social Policy Review (Bristol: Policy Press).

11.2

The Approaches and Methods of

Social Policy

Angus Erskine

Introduction
Social policy is studied and taught in universities and colleges as an academic subject, as well as being an area of practice. This
is to point to a distinction, which is frequently confusing for students of social
policy, between social policy as a field of
study and social policy as a set of policies
adopted by government, local authorities
and other organizations to achieve social
purposes.
The connection between academic study
and practice is central to social policy, but
that can create a further difficulty for students when they first come across the subject. Social policy analysts direct their
attention to improving conditions. The
problem with this is that there is no one way
of agreeing what is 'better'. The answer relies upon a value judgment. For example,
sorne people argue that it is better for children to be brought up by biological parents
who are married. Others argue that it is
better for a child to be loved by his or her
parent(s) than to live in a household in
Which the parents are fighting. Despite the
attempts to 'measure' the outcomes of these
alternatives, by looking at school performance, truancy or juvenile delinquency, neither case can be proved or disproved in a
scientific way. The dispute is really about
what a'good' family and upbringing is, and
this is a normative view. Ultimately the
debate cannot be resolved because it is
based upon values, not upon facts.

In social policy, there is another tension,

that between analysis and practice. To an
extent, they involve different skills and approaches. Analysis requires scepticism,
while practice requires conviction. Those
who study social policies have to ask questions about evidence. While social policy
cannot claim to be a science, it draws its legitimacy as a subject on its ability to draw
upon the methods of a number of social
sciences and apply these in a rigorous and
disciplined way to understand the field in
which we are interested. But social policy
also involves beliefs and taking sides about
issues which social science cannot resolve.
As chapters 11.1 to 11.14 illustrate, social
policy involves understanding a range of
philosophical and political perspectives.
Some people see social policy as a subbranch of sociology. Sociology is interested
in the relationships between social groups
and individuals and in understanding how
they work; and in many universities social
policy is taught in the same department as
sociology. But social policy makes a claim
to be more than just a branch of sociology.
Social policy is different, because while
there is a set of areas which all social policy
analysts would agree that they find of common interest, there is no one discipline to
which they turn in examining them. Social
policy analysts share a common concern
with a particular field of study - social wellbeing. Within the subject, there are a diversity of approaches and methods. It is this,

12

ANGUS ERSKINE

which makes it difficult to understand what

social policy is. Social policy draws upon
methods and theories used in sociology,
statistics, management science, history, law,
economics, political science, philosophy,
geography and social psychology to help
to explore well-being. It does not make a
claim to having any unique set of methods,
concepts, theories or insights. 1 would describe it as a multidisciplinary field of study
rather than a discipline.

Social Issues
Within social policy there are a number of
different starting points which authors
and researchers take in developing the subject. One starting point to the study of social policy is exploring current social issues.
For example, the demographic structure
(the age profile) of the population is changing. People are living longer in most advanced capitalist countries and they are
having fewer children. This rise in life expectancy, accompanied by a lower birth
rate, is also taking place while the structure
of households and families is changing.
More people are living on their own, particularly young people and single elderly
people; the former as a result of increasing
affluence and the latter as people outlive
their spouses for more years. At the same
time, there is a growth in the number of
people living together whilst not being
married and an increasing number of lone
parent households. These trends in demography and in the social structure of the family are a starting point to consider the future
consequences for social policies. These
trends are social, in that while they are experienced by individuals as personal, they
are shared between groups of individuals.
Longevity is not just a consequence of personal good health but of societal changes
in diet, living and working conditions, and
health care. Divorce is not just a consequence of the breakdown of a relationship
between two individuals, but takes place
within a socially determined context of
norms and laws. These trends are social is-

THE APPROACHES AND METHODS OF SOCIAL POLICY

sues. For example, social policy cannot ig.'

nore that future health care planning requires paying attention to the growing_
number of elderly people in the population,=
Housing policy (see chapter IV.11) needs
to respond to the different housing needs
which come about as a result of the different size and form of households which are
developing.
These issues interact with developing social policies. For example, the quality and
quantity of care for people in the community (as opposed to care in institutions like
hospitals, which was the predominant
model in the post-war years) is affected by
the social trends which are taking place. An
issues based approach to social policy requires an assessment of the relative future
importance of these social trends. For example, many commentators argue that there
will be a crisis in the funding of the state
pension in the early part of the next century,
whereas others point out that this is not necessarily the case (see chapter 111.12). An issues based approach seeks to identify the
central, relevant trends and examine their
consequences for social policies.
To explore the impact of these social issues, we can draw upon a range of methods from other disciplines: demography,
public sector economics, social psychology
and law. Demography, the study of patterns of births and deaths, provides us with
the context. Statistics may provide us with
techniques that can help us to predict. Public sector economics helps to analyse the
likely pressure points on government finances. Social psychology and sociology
provide an understanding of the structure
and content of care and needs. A knowledge of law helps to analyse the legislative
framework within which policy is implemented.

They want to study social policy, so that

decisions can be made on a rational basis
which will improve policies and overcome
the difficulties that people face in their life.
This is part of a long tradition in social
policy research (although it has been criticized because it fails to question how far
problems are constructed by dominant
groups rather than being externally existing facts ). A social problem approach looks
for solutions. The work of early social policy
analysts like Seebohm Rowntree was devoted to studying the problem of poverty
and the measures necessary to overcome
poverty. More recently, social policy has
become interested in exploring other social
problems, such as homelessness, long-term
unemployment, AIDS, juvenile crime or the
growth in lone parenthood.
In all Western European countries, unemployment has been an issue of growing
concern. This problem has been explained
in a variety of ways.

Some suggest it is a result of the development of new technologies, particularly those associated with new
information technologies such as computing and telecommunication.
Others identify the problem as having
its roots in the characteristics of the people who are unemployed for a long period of time: either they lack enterprise
because they have been brought up to
expect that they will be employed by
one employer for life or they do not have
skills which can be transferred into other
jobs.
Others explain the problem in terms of

Social Problems
Another related approach is a 'social prob
lem' focus on social policy. Many students
are attracted to social policy because they
hope it will help to resolve social problems

economics. As a result of the speed of

communication across the globe, the
world is being drawn together into a
Single economic entity and long-term
unemployment reflects the inability of
the economies of Western Europe to
compete effectively with the developing
and growing economies in other parts
of the world.
Others explain the problem as a result
of the institutional structures that sur-

13

round unemployment, which make

people unwilling or unable to accept the
changes that are taking place in a postindustrial society in which paid work
has a different role in people's life
course. Therefore people who are unemployed should be encouraged to
think about their lives in different ways.
Another set of institutional explanations
focuses upon the ways in which the
structure of the benefits system interacts
with paid employment, creating an unemployment trap for those who are unemployed, in which they are better off
unemployed and living off state unemployment benefits than they are taking
a low-paid job.

These sorts of explanations all derive from

a focus on unemployment as a social problem. Investigation of social policies to deal
with unemployment, for instance, can draw
on a range of methods. We might want to
know about how unemployment has been
tackled in the past, and this would involve
investigating historical documents. A
knowledge of labour markets and their
analysis and the market for particular skills
could be brought to bear to help understand
the reasons for the trends, and would involve methods drawn from economics. We
might investigate who are the unemployed,
their employment history, how they
became unemployed and their attitudes
towards paid work. The problem of unemployment can be approached from a
number of different angles. Each provides
part of an understanding of the nature of
the problem.

Social Groups
Another approach to social policy is that
which focuses upon the needs of particular
social groups, such as elderly people, children, homeless people or unemployed people. For example, while unemployment
may be approached as a social problem,
equally it might be approached by looking
at the needs of people who are unemployed.

14

ANGUS ERSKINE

A needs-based approach starts by looking

at what happens to those who become unemployed and how unemployment affects
their lives. Social policy analysts want to
know how unemployed people's lives are
changed by unemployment, how people
who are unemployed experience it and
what they identify as their needs and the
i mpact of unemployment upon their lives.
They would also be interested in the extent
to which policies directed towards the unemployed in different countries meet their
needs (or do not meet them): for example,
whether the unemployed are socially isolated, facing financial hardship or being
reintegrated finto new employment more in
one country than another.

Social Services
In Britain, however, the traditional approach to social policy was concentrated
upon the 'big five' social services. Education, health care, housing, personal social
services and social security are the starting
point of this approach to social policy. Social policy is concerned with how these
services are organized and administered,
how they perform and whom they benefit.
This original approach taken by social administration reflected the importante of
state institutions in the development of social provision in Britain over the past century. The focus of study was upon what
governments do and how the policies pursued in the broad areas of social services
affect the social divisions of class, and (more
recently) gender and ethnicity, and the contribution they make in promoting the wellbeing of different social groups. To analyse
these social policies requires knowledge of
legislation, organization and politics. It
brings to its analysis methods developed
in a range of other disciplines.

Social Policies in People ' s Lives

In contrast to this traditional social administration approach, a new approach to social policy is developing which argues that

THE APPROACHES AND METHODS OF SOCIAL POLICY

15

social policy should be understood differ,

such as effectiveness, efficiency, equity,
general and which can illuminate events for
ently. Instead of looking at the range of
opportunity, liberation, autonomy or
those who have no similar experience.
ways in which social services (in their wid.
sustainability.
est definition) are produced, we should be',

Third,
there is a concern with how polilooking at how people live, experience and What is Social Policy?
cies are institutionally organized and
consume a range of goods and services thatii
Explanations of what social policy is freimplemented. This is because any evalutogether contribute to their welfare. What
quently focus upon its breadth and diverative analysis requires an understandthis approach contributes to the debate' sity and illustrate how wide an area of
ing of the structures of organizations
about the nature of social policy is a view:
study it is and the range of disciplines upon
and the way in which those structures
of the subject in terms of how it connects to
which it calls in its analysis. This can lead a
i mpinge both upon those who work
people's lives. It adds to our understand.
student to wonder whether social policy is
within them and upon the consumers
ing of the nature of social policy because
not about everything and about nothing.
of their services. This involves examinwhereas most of the previously discussed
There are a number of different starting
ing not only state services but also perapproaches are to an extent detached from
points for studying social policy: social issonal and informal care and private
people's experiences and lives, this ap.
sues, social problems, social groups, social
providers of welfare services.
proach fosters awareness of the way social
services and the experience of users. Social
Fourth, there is an examination of the
policies are integrated in the lived experi.
policy uses methods of inquiry drawn from
components which construct 'welfare'.
ence of individuals and groups.
a range of disciplines and it is more than
That is why social policy is concerned
In the past, social policy authors have
the sum of the part of a number of different
with looking at new areas and expandtended to look at what happens to 'them',
approaches taken in social policy and ading its range of interests away from a
because, social policy has not been studied
ministration. But what holds it all together?
focus just on state welfare services.
by those who are in a position to experi
First,
there
is
an
interest
in
the
welfare
The study of social policy is concerned with
ence the conditions which people face.
of individuals and social groups. But
those aspects of public policies, market opTherefore the questions are posed differ' welfare' is an essentially contested conerations, personal consumption and interently from the way in which they would be
cept and one lesson from the history of
personal
relationships which contribute to,
if they were informed by experience. A
social policy is that there is not any one
or detract from, the well-being or welfare
new concern with identity, users and expeagreed view of what constitutes it. Traof individuals or groups. Social policy exrience has been developing in social policy
ditional Fabian approaches, the New
plores the social, political, ideological and
which suggests that those who Nave direct
Right, Greens and the diversity of femiinstitutional context within which welfare
experience have a crucial understanding of
nist approaches are all concerned with
is produced, distributed and consumed. It
what is happening. Therefore women prothe same issue, but the major differences
seeks to provide an account of the processes
vide the basic understanding of the posibetween them lie in what they identify
which contribute to or detract from welfare,
tion of women in relation to social policies,
as being the constituents of 'welfare' and
and it does this within a normative frameDisabled people provide an essential inthe appropriate routes towards it.
work which involves debating moral and
sight into the study of policies for disabled
political issues about the nature of the depeople. Unemployment cannot be under- Second, there is an interest in not just a
philosophy or theory of welfare but an
sired outcomes. This definition of social
stood without listening to the voice of the
analysis of policies and their impact.
policy has two important components: a
unemployed. This view has an importad
Evaluating social policies according to
concern with welfare, and a recognition of
political message for social policy analysts
specific criteria is the business of social
the normative and contested nature of so- the importante of listening to direct ex,
policy academics, but different views of
cial
policy. It is the latter which distinperience.
welfare give rise to assessments and
guishes social policy from other social
All students of social policy have impon
analyses based upon different criteria,
science subjects and makes it exciting.
tant experiences which can help to illumi
nate their studies. We are all users ot
services which promote or detract from od
welfare and these experiences should be Cuide to further reading
reflected upon in a systematic way. The
immediate, intimate or experiential has tc Much of the reading suggested for the previous chapter provides a useful starting point
be structured in such a way as to provide to looking at some of the different approaches to the subject of social policy. There are a
an account which contains elements of the number of good examples of the approaches that 1 have outlined aboye, for example

16

ANGUS ERSKINE

J. Hills, The Future of Welfare (York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1997) looks at some of i
the issues which the welfare state faces . M. May, R. Page and E. Brunsdon Understanding
Social Problems (Oxford : Blackwell, 2001 ) takes a social problems approach . G. Payne So.
cial Divisions (Basingstoke : Macmillan Press, 2000) examines a range of social groups in
society. H. Glennerster and J. Hills The State of Welfare (Oxford : Oxford University Press,
1998) approaches the subject from a service-based perspective and takes an economic
analysis. J. Morris Independent Lives? (Basingstoke : Macmillan Press , 1993) looks at the

1.3

The Role of Comparative Study

Margaret May

experience of disability and caring.

The study of welfare provision inevitably

involves some forro of comparison between
current practice and past or alternative
ways of meeting need or improving existing policies. Such comparisons may not always be explicit, and the value bases may
vary, but they are central to a discipline
geared to evaluating welfare arrangements.
This chapter focuses on the ways in which
policy analysts have attempted to compare
and contrast provision between different
societies. It considers the aims of comparative study, the types of questions most commonly asked, the special demands such
inquiry places on students and researchers,
and the key areas of current debate.
It is important to recognize, however,
that comparative cross-national study is a
relatively recent development, especially in
the UK, where it was for long impeded by
a widespread belief in the superiority of the
Beveridge settlement (see chapters 1.1 and
1.4). It has also been constrained by the locus of social policy as an academic discipline. In the United States and Canada, for
instance, social policy is based primarily in
social work departments, with a corresponding emphasis on professional practice. Elsewhere, apart from some separate
provision in Australia, New Zealand, Hong
Kong and the Republic of Ireland, it is located in political science, economics, sociology, public administration, law,
management studies or combinations of
these. This diverse base has oriented com-

parative research in particular ways in different institutions, adding to the complexity of cross-national analysis.
But whatever the setting, early studies
tended to focus on advanced industrialized
societies and within these on statutory welfare. Though these preoccupations still
frame comparative enquiry, a number of
factors have inspired a growing interest
both in non-statutory forros of welfare and
provision in other parts of the world. These
developments have in turn opened up new
questions and stimulated reconsideration
of earlier theorizing, with analysts contributing to and drawing on research initiated
elsewhere. Seeing provision through 'outside' eyes has, moreover, given an added
twist to national debates about the direction and outcomes of current welfare reforms.

Why Comparative Social Policy?

Historically the starting point for comparative analysis was the observation that in the
decades after the Second World War many
countries, especially those of the industrialized West, experienced a massive expansion in publicly financed and delivered
welfare. This was underpinned, as the reports by Marsh in Canada, Van Rhijn in the
Netherlands, Laroque in France and
Beveridge in Britain showed, by a widespread belief in the state's duty and capacity tocare for its citizens. Funding methods