Analyses of Social Problems in Case Studies

Critical Social Pol icy

Demetrius 5. /atridis

1\lf' ore and more in the new millennium, critical social policy is reflected ."I ~in the discourse of social science-and in social policy and social work as well. More and more of the professional literature on social welfare theory and social work practice of interventions for planned change explores the impact of critical social policy in the context of social justice, equality, human rights, and empowerment in advanced global capitalism. More and more critical social policy is discussed in the context of global, national, and local issues. Recent global developments in advanced capitalism necessitated critical social policy approaches in a wider range of central areas including critical social work (Leonard, 2001), social work curricula (Allan, Pease, & Briskman, 2003 ), public policy (Woodside-Jiron, 2004), , social welfare (Clarke & Islam, 2004; Leonard, 1997), poverty (MacGregor, 2005), theory and practice (Mooney, Scott, & Williams, 2006; Wahab, 2005), socioeco­ nomic justice and equality (Dybicz, 2004 ), globalization (El-Ojeili & Hayden, 2007), clinical social work and therapy (Dow & McDonald, 2003; Sands & Soloman, 2001), education (Healy & Leonard, 2000), diversity and inclusion (Brown, 2001; Hugman, 2001), housing and urban affairs (Martin, 2004), health and mental health (Mubarak, 2003), global development (Browne, 2002; Haacke, 2005), epistemology (Dow & McDonald, 2003; Fook, 1999; Gladstone, 2001), oppression and power (Baines, 2000; Mullaly, 2001; Profitt, 2000), and work-family issues (Martin, 2004).

_________ Evol11.1tio111 of Critical Social Policy

The term critical is used in philosophy and social science literature to denote the analysis of capitalist change and the mntating forms of domination that accom­ pany it. It is also associated with New Left, feminist, and antidiscriminatory

215

216 TIIE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOCIAL POLICY

policy analysis in the context of contradictions between the progressive rhetoric of egalitarianism and the reality of racial and class discrimination. Critical social policy traditions have drawn inspiration from many theorists, including Marx, Kant, Hegel, Weber, the Frankfurt school, Foucault, Habermas, Derrida, Freire, and Giroux (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994).

Critical theory typically refers to theoretical traditions developed last century by rhe Frankfurt Institute of Social Research at the University of Frankurt in Germany (the Frankfurt school). Believing that injustice and subjugation shaped the world, its leaders-Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer, Leo Lowenthal, and Herbert Marcuse-focused 011 rein­ terpreting the forms of domination and oppression associated with Nazism, Fascism, and the changing nature of capitalism.

Critical social policy is fundamentally based on postmodern social science inquiries about social structures and the state in advanced capitalist societies. Their dominant statist, corporatist, and neoliberal institutions of capitalist societies serve primarily the profit interests of the oppressive classes (composed primarily of rich white males), which legislate for and control racial and ethnic groups, the poor, women, the powerless, and cul­ t\ual minorities. In this view, state welfare represents typically ruling class, race, and gender interests (Forestei; 1993; Foucault, 1972; Gough & Thomas, 1993; Leonard, 1997; Piven & Cloward, 1996). Critical perspec­ tives, especially the liberating work of Marcuse, provided the philosophical

·voice of the New Left regarding political emancipation (Gibson, 1986; Marcuse, 1996; Wexler, 1991). Advocacy for liberation, emancipation, and the empowerment of underrepresented people in advanced capitalism is a central ideological theme and principle of the critical social policy approach (Popkewitz, 1990; Roberts, 1990).

In the United States, Britain, and Western Europe, critical social policy is associated with activism against socioeconomic oppression through restruc­ turing the social economy and with social justice and reformist community approaches to social reconstructiori. It is also concerned with human rights;

' social care; racial, age, ethnjc, and gender equality; and social diversity and inclusion. Inherent contradictions and oppressive elements in statist, admin­ istrative welfare associated with Fabian and Titmussian policies are typical foci of critical analysis.

Critical social policy did not evolve suddenly and does not operate in a

I,

vacuum. Rather, it developed in three related contextual frames related to public policy controversies: first, critical theory as social inquiry; second, social policy as a discipline and practice in its own right; and, third, global­ ization and the transformation of the social economy after World War II. The combination of all three provided the context of public policy contro­ versies and discourse. The controversies include the unprecedented expan­ sion and transformation of capitalist modes following World War II, the globalization of the economy, the.support for free market ideology, and the inextricable link between economic logic and social policy goals in advanced

I

217 14. Critical Social Policy

capitalist countries. The discourse has accelerated the role of critical social policy and enhanced its practice.

A Mode of Critical Theory

Critical social policy's unified dialectical critique of society and its discourse for human emancipation associated with postpositivism and postmodernism emerged as a result of multiple historical developments. They include the frustration of some of the movement's leaders with the American social science establishment and its a priori, traditional belief that empiricism and positivism can describe and accurately measure any dimen­ sion of human behavior (Kellner, 1990). Frustration was also fueled by the forms of domination emerging from post-Enlightenment culture nurtured by advanced capitalism (Billings, 1992).

Frustration with positivism opened the road to dialectical inquiries on the social construction of experience and to postpositivist and postmodern critical approaches. This disillusion with capitalist culture helped to iden­ tify critical theory with concerns about power relations, the state in a free market, and class structures. Together these concerns paved the way to the conviction that a reconstruction of social sciences, and the understanding of power relations in society, could eventually lead to a more egalitarian and democratic social order.

In this context, critical theory downgrades positivist, technicist, value­ neutral, and rational views of reality as old views of knowledge, characterizing them as "dated," "raw empiricism," "mindless quantification," "antihuman­ ism," "legitimation of the status quo," and ''pretentiousness" (Turner, 1985). Notably, it rejects the positivist notions that science and scientific methods can acqnire knowledge of human social reality by empirical knowledge alone (that is, only by sensory experience). It also rejects the idea that objec­ tive reality is separate from the observer and can be understood through objective observation independently of the observer (Ammassari, 1992; Greenwood, 1995; Tyson, 1992). It denies that social science, including pol­ icy science, can be scientific in the same way as physics or mathematics (Adler, 1964; Kolb, 1964). It does not accept that ethical concerns are meaningless in the context of scientific inquiry or that setting goals is non­ rational and arbitrary because goals concern only ethics and philosophy (Turne1; 1992) or that social science inquiry can only select means to an end, not goals.

·Under strong criticism by several social science schools of thought (Kuhn, 1962), positivism has now dissolved into a plurality of approaches. At the same time, new postpositivist perspectives (Nagel, 1961) have emerged, including critical social science and, in turn, critical social policy. Postpositivism favors new perspectives based on the notion that all knowl­ edge is constructed and consists of what individuals create and express.

218 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOCIAL POLICY

This view is known as constructivism. Notably, postpositivists argue that, in the real world, the choice of goals is more important than the choice of rational technical means to achieve them. They claim that scientific methodology is not and cannot be valne free and objective because opting for scientism, rationalism, and empiricism to the exclusion of other per­ spectives is itself a value orientation and an oxymoron (Eckstein, 1968; Lerner & Lasswell, 1951; Raymond, 1968). They believe that empiricism and rational technical models cannot resolve social issues of choice among conflicting but desirable social goals, offering no direction in interventions for social change. People, they contend, create knowledge from the interac­ tion between their existing knowledge or beliefs and the new ideas or situ­ atiolls they encounter.

Critical theory relies heavily on several postpositive and postmodern schools of thought. For example, critical theorists are inspired by phenom­ enology in that they link knowledge to action and to the subjective mean­ ings of the problem to the actors, suggesting that knowledge is constructed in a social context rather than having an independent existence. The notion that a given whole is problematic (not given) and that people create knowl­ edge from the interaction between experience and their existing knowledge or beliefs and the assumption that there are a set of social structures that are unobservable but which generate observable social phenomena reflects structuralism (Habermas, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974; White, 1988).

Social Policy Planning

Critical social policy as an advocacy mode of social policy planning is associated with developments regarding the nature and role of social plan­ ning in contemporary capitalist societies. In advanced capitalism, there are different contexts of social policy discourse. Howevei; two contexts are cru­ cial. These are economic rationality and advocacy for underrepresented groups. That is, social policy planning includes two fundamental strategic modes of intervention for social change or for maintaining the status quo. One is its economic-rational mode (technical rationality), and the other is its social justice-political mode. In its ecoriomic-rational mode, social pol­ icy planning seeks to identify issues of policy choice, to construct a search of options, to gather data relevant to the choice among options, to set up criteria for choice, and to recomn1end cl1oices. Technical rationality is based mainly on asocial, ahistorical, and value-neutral technicist and empir­ ical approaches. In its social justice-political mode, social policy planning seeks to identify issue frames in the policy discourse and to specify the forum in which the discourse occurs. In other words, it seeks to identify and analyze the political power game of interests and domination that is at stake in any given policy issue or controversy and to explore the social justice, ethical, and value structures that underlie the controversy.

219 14. Critical Social Policy

Distributive socioeconomic justice and political power favoring empow­ erment of the disadvantaged, racial and gender equality, emancipation, self­ determiuation, and advocacy for the powerless are at the epicenter of the critical social policy mode. Rather than focusing on economic technical rationality, critical social policy analyzes . political power dominations in policy issues and explores their social justice structures. Hence, it rejects utilitarian models of social justice (maximization of aggregate utility based on satisfaction of individual demands), market justice models (proclaiming. markets as just distributive systems), and libertarian models (opposing redistribution of goods and services). Instead, critical social policy incorpo­ rates Rawls's justice as fairness 111odel: a social contract model requiring the fair redistributions of income, wealth, and power and favoring the poor and powerless (latridis, 1994 ).

Committed to the justice as fairness model and, therefore, to redistribu­ tion, critical social policy rejects society's gender oppression and inequality. Dubois and Duelli-Klein (1983) provide insights that transcend patriarchal and traditional societal gender roles. In this context, critical social policy practice is associated with social justice reform struggles, community radi­ calism, and antidiscriminatory movements for just and equal relations (Fenby, 1991; Forester, 1993; Leonard, 1997; Piven & Cloward, 1996; Rossiter, 1996; Tyson, 1992). The social justice-political mode is based mainly on advocacy, distributive social justice, racial and gender equality, and democratic self-determination for individuals, groups, and communi­ ties. Empowerment, emancipation, and liberation are central themes of these modes. Between the two poles (technical rationality and social jnstice) are several other modes of social policy planning, which constitute combi­ nations of technological logic and social justice-political goals.

Critical social policy is best understood, and more accurately represented, in the context of the social justice and political mode of social policy plan­ ning. In this mode, it is concerned with botb the social justice tbat underlies public policy controversies in capitalism and the historical social transfor­ mation of social economy. Planners .enter into the policy arena as value­ committed and value-critical actors, se<:king strategically to advocate for social change of a kind that empowers ill-represented classes and social groups.

A Mode Emerging From Globalization and Post-World War II Developments

Critical social policy is not a newcomer in public policy discourse. The ancient origins of social policy planning reflect striking similarities with contemporary concerns regarding rationality, social justice, and equal­ ity. For example, ancient Mesopotamia established the legal Code of Hammurabi and female roles and equality in ancient Greece were debated in Plato's Republic and in Aristotle's Politics and Ethics (Lasswell, 1971).

220 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOCIAL POLICY

However, contemporary perspectives on social policy planning's nature and .approaches differ considerably from these older debates.

Four seminal socioeconomic developments in the post-World .War II era have shaped recent modes of critical social policy and its discourse. The first is war technology, which includes operations research, as well as behavioral and management scientific investigations. These developments provided policy makers with ahistorical, asocial, and "value-free" technical frame­ works and tools to guide their action in finding solutions to major problems (Lerner & Lasswell,'1951). In this sense, technological developments influ­ enced the emergence of technical modes of social policy planning. They also contributed to the emergence of the technical aspects of social policy plan­ ning as a macro-level, positivist process of "objective" reality and rational choice in interventions for action by groups and communities (Dear, Briar, & Van Ry, 1986; Figueira-McDonough, 1993; Frey 1987; Haynes & Mickelson, 1986; Iatridis, 1995; Jansson, 1984, 1994; Nulman, 1983; Pierson, 1994; Tropman, 1987; Weimer & Vining, 1992; Wyers, 1991). The policy science movement is also seen as one outcome of this develop­ ment. Perceived as a structllred rationality and organized creativity in the interests of better policy making, the movement is concerned with the tech­ nical allocation of resources and with efficiency. However, Dror (1971) sug­ gests that the movement is also concerned with relations between knowledge and power and the social significance of science.

The second deVelopment concerns the social consensus of do1ninant classes about worldwide reconstruction and ways to meet human needs within advanced capitalism, notably in the decades following World War II. The social consensus of major political groups in the postwar period sup­ ported the st::ite as provider of social programs and services within the cap­ italist frames. The democracies of the West, chastened by the brutalities of pure capitalism, the two world wars, and the Great Depression, accepted the necessity of a inixed economy for socioeconomic reconstruction. They concluded that a market economy needed to be tamed and domesticated by an ever-expanding capitalist state welfare system and by checks to regulate the market's stability and its ethical and just operation. Inherent in this was the notion that states have responsibilities to improve social well-being and social structures while, at the same time, maintaining strong· capitalist economies. In this context, Western societies, including the United States, Britain, and Scandinavian countries, expanded social reforms on the wave of worldwide reconstruction and a long economic boom. This development is associated with shifts of social policy planning approaches toward the social justice-political pole of the continuum.

The third development, occurring in the middle 1970s, concerns the dis­ integration of the postwar social consensus, the end of the expansion of labor demand, labor movements, the welfare state, and globalization. The economic stagnation and declining rates of economic growth of the 1970s, massive restructuring of capital and labor, new forces of production, mass

221 14. Critical Social Policy

communication, technology, globalization, and the resurgence of organized business as a political force undermined the social coalition of elite politi­ cal forces.

The transformation of the global social economy and the consequent weakening of national policies are at the epicenter of the critical social policy mode. More specifically, globalization flattened the planet by collapsing time and distance (Friedman, 2005), while the global economy is self-regulating, operating almost iudependently of national political systems, which function mainly nationally. With only a few basic rules, liberal global capitalism is essentially unaccountable and free from social justice and traditional govern­ ment policies, a situation that has generated new egalitarian challenges and critical social policy interventions at global, national, and local policy levels. For example, the implementation by 2015 of the United Nations Millennium Declaration requires critical social policy approaches that transcend the effectiveness of traditional, technical policy models. The eight Millennium Development Goals (eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve mental health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and otl1er diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and develop a global partnership for development) are unique in complexity and scope and, thus, unlikely to be achieved with traditional positivist policy approaches.

National policies are also transformed by globalization. Some policies shifted up to international institutions (the Europ.ean Union, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA). Others shifted down to local institutions, generating what may be called "cosmopolitan localism": local self-governments with distinct global orientation to protect local development policies from global economic competition. This bifur­ cation reduced the effectiveness of national socioeconomic policies (Wilding, 1997), necessitating new critical social policy practice in several policy areas: global warming, pollution and waste disposal, global poverty, drug abuse, migration, sex slavery or tourism, and the imbalance between capital and labor. Unfettered global economic competition also generated the "public burden model of health and welfare" phenomenon that seeks to reduce welfare states at all levels and exerts strong downward pressure on social expenditure. Consequently, global and national social policies mainly enhance economic efficiency rather than temper unfettered capitalism.

Globalization is controversial. Supporters argue that, driven by three concerted technological revolutions (communications, transportation, and information technology), it stimulates worldwide socioeconomic development, ensures prosperity for all, brings real chances of prosperity to the impover­ ished in the world, and maximizes socioeconomic efficiency because of free movements of goods and services (Lewis, 2001; Seitz, 2002). Opponents argue that global competition harms the environment, concentrates wealth more than it creates broad opportunities, benefits mainly the industrialized

T 222 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOCIAL POLICY I

countries, and causes growing social exclusion, diScrimination, poverty, injustice, and inequality on the planet. Unregulated global capitalism fails to invest adequately in public goods and produces socially intolerable dis­ tributions of income, wealth, and power. Moreover, macroeconomic poli­ cies in one country compete with those of other countries, harming rather than.benefiting development. In order to promptly "put the genie back into the bottle," opponents propose alternative globalization models at all levels, ones that will provide the same pro-corporate protection for work­ ers, the environment, and the poor.

Fourth, the revived credulity in pure markets and a shift to Radical Right ideologies in the 1980s, brought about by radical socioeconomic develop­ ments, moved social policy planning away from the state to local goverrnuents and to residual, low-cost social programs. In this context, l(eynesianism was attaclced because it favored increased central government spending and social welfare programs in economic crises. At the same tin1e, political forces of the Left and the Right intensified their assanlt against social pol­ icy planning's ideological orientations, notably state welfare provision of programs and services for well-being. The fragmenting of the social coali­ tion and the shift to the ideological right moved the trend away from col­ lective frames of social policy planning toward individualistic technological approaches of unfettered markets, which is the technicist mode of the social policy planning continuum.

Critical Soda! Policy Revisited ___________

Critical social policy's canons for social change focus on community radical­ ism, democratic socfal liberation, empowerment, and emancipation. In the process, they challenge the capitalist institutional structures that dominate

·modern sOcieties. In this context, critical social policy practice is associated with social reform struggles, community radicalism, and anti-discrimina\01y movements for just and equal social relations. Typically, such practice is char­ acterized by radical analyses of community structures and institutions (Blaug, 1995; Code, 1991; Fenby, 1991; Forester, 1993; Ginsburg, 1979, 1992; Leonard, 1994, 1997; Piven & Cloward, 1996; Rossiter, 1996; Tayl01; 1996; Tyson, 1992). Advocating distributive socioeconomic justice goals, equality, human emancipation, and community radical action, critical social policy is committed to social liberation goals rather than to empirical, value-neutral, apolitical, asocial technical interventions and research.

Power and Social Structure

Critical social policy assumes that contemporary advanced capitalist societies and their state institutions are oppressive in that they systemati­ cally represent the interests of certain societal groups at the expense of the

223 14. Critical Social Policy

interests of others. Explicit in analyses of socioecono1nic issues are concerns with oppression, exploitation, and social injustice, iucluding the foci of power, race, gende1; income, wealth, poverty, and education. Critical per­ spectives contend that capitalist societies and their dominant institutions serve primarily the interests of an oppressive class of rich white n:iales leg­ islating for and controlling the poor, women, and the powerless as well as cultural and ethnic minorities. Using principles and ideas that serve their own interests, elite classes and governments preteud instead that their poli­ cies and programs protect the poor, women, the powerless, and the disad­ vantaged (Abramovitz, 1996; Ginsburg, 1992; Gough, 1979; Piven & Cloward, 1971, 1977).

Critical perspectives have also helped analyze state welfare and its crisis, critiquing the liberal, Fabian, social democratic, and democratic-centrist or communist approaches to social services that emerged in the post-World War IT era. The critical social policy critique is directed at the policies of William Beveridge (1879-1963) and the Labour Party in Britain, as well as the New Deal and the Great Society programs in the United States. The wel­ fare states of democratic centralism in the former Soviet Union are also challenged as top to bottom domination, devoid of citizens' participation in social policy making.

Critical perspectives are also used to respond to the Radical Right's attacks on state welfare (Ackerman, 1982; Ginsburg, 1992; Iatridis, 1983, 1988, 1994; Lekachman, 1982; Rousseas, 1982). Reaganomics and Thatcherism inspired policies in favor of the ruling, elite, corporate class and against the poor. Critical approaches, using class and power analyses and emphasizing empowerment, emancipation, caring, human needs, and l(eynesian per­ spectives, critiqued the ideology and power interests of the Radical Right. Under the pretense of protecting the poor while, in fact, favoring the rich, Reaganomic policies and programs drastically reduced taxation on corpo­ rations, and high-income groups increased their profits and cut state social expenditures deeply. The shift to the ideological right revived residual, workfare, and lower-cost forms of social programs by delegating responsi­ bility for state social care to local authority and control.

Critical social policy advocacy has also focused on society's gender oppression and inequality. Dubois and Duelli-Klein (1983) claim that criti­ cal approaches illuminate the ways in which dominant members of society have perpetuated hierarchical social structure assumptions in all aspects of institutional norms. Critical analysis has provided insights that transcend patriarchal and traditional societal gender roles. It refocused the way women and female welfare recipients perceive themselves and interpret their tasks (Bernstein, 1978; Code, 1991; Fenby, 1991). This encourages action based on what people actually do (transcending rationalism) and what their knowledge is (transcending positivism), and it considers a dialec­ tic interplay between actors' values and rationalizations. From this per­ spective, the attention to values and the use of the self provides a different understanding of power relations in gender and feminist analyses and

224 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOCIAL POLICY

illuminates more accurately the women's situation and problems (Abramovitz, 1996; Davis, 1985; Ehrenreich & Piven, 1984; Pascal, 1991).

Critical social policy has been applied in several other domains, includ­ ing bousing and the bureaucratization of professional practice. In the field of housing and homelessness, its analysis indicates that mainstream social policy approaches are inadequate, simplistic, and atheoretical and that they cannot explain the relation between social structure or key institutions and the housing problem. Nor do they directly explain the lack of effective social policy and provision for low-cost housing and bomeless people (Evans, 1991; Haar & Iatridis, 1974; Johnson, Murie, & Naumann, 1991; Neal, 1997). Instead, critical social policy uses alternative theoretical per­ spectives, which focus on subjectivity, power, powerlessness, and postmod­ ernism (Neal, 1997; Sommervil, 1992).

Habermas's (1971) analysis of the crucial transformation of liberal cap­ italism to that of advanced monopolistic capitalism is associated with the changing role of the state in the economy. This change gave rise to the administrative state and to the decreased role of the public in decision mak­ ing, notably in welfare discourse (Kellner, 1989; Koivisto & Valiverronen, 1996; Leonard, 1997). Habermas's theory of communicative action has been used to analyze tbe bureaucratization and quality of some forms of critical analysis. These analyses highlight dissatisfaction about solu­ tions being offered by professionals and mainstream social policy and management experts. Critical social policy considers such solutions overly mechanical, instrumental conceptions of human reason and, therefore, as inappropriate for designing human care (Blaug, 1995). Habermas's work to improve com1nunicative methods has implications for social work practice in the areas of supervision, agency policy, training, assessme11t and moni­ toring, staff support groups, action learning and empowerment groups, user involvement, and social work research (Forester, 1987; Lukacs, 1923/1971, 1993; Masson, 1990; Mullender & W~rd, 1991).

Intervention for Social Change

Advocacy and empowerment interventions for social change call for the attainment of strorig emancipatory, democratic, antidiscriminat9ry social liberation goals. Status quo frames and socioeconomic inequalities consti­ tute social injustice and must be rejected. Accordingly, critical social policy encourages oppressed individuals, groups, and communities to examine societal structures as well as their own values and beliefs. The advocacy­ empowerment approach exposes the ways in which social and cultural real ­ ities may hinder the human potential of all people (Lather, 1991).

Implicit in this perspective is the notion that individuals, groups, and communities do not need didactic experts to lead them because they are capable of becoming enlightened about hidden influences in their own

225 14. Critical Social Policy

situations of social economy. Emancipatory action and praxis leading to social change will occur once people, groups, and communities are enlight­ ened, empowered, and organized. Responding to the experience and needs of communities and groups can inspire and guide the process of sociocul­ tural transformation and liberation.

By explaining the links between society's institutions and the everyday behaviors of individuals, groups, and communities, the poor and powerless can see how ideology serves the interests and development of elites. Power, as a property of relationships, is transactional and dynamic. When power as force and dominance is the reality, the social systems that evolve become stratified. Power is viewed as a limited commodity that must be acquired (Marcuse, 1996). In most societies, hierarchical relationships are considered normal, and, typically, society's institutions (families, schools, community agencies, the media, government bodies, and churches) enforce the d9mi­ nant values of the powerful.

Dynamic and Eclectic Inquiry

Critical social policy is dynamic, open-ended, qualitative, and constantly evolving to integrate empirical, interpretive, phenomenological, ethical, and other critical social science perspectives. Implicit in this assumption is the notion that critical inquiry-which includes observing, asking, acting, and reflecting­ expands reflective practice (Comstock, 1982; Freire, 1986; Lather, 1991; Morgain, 1994; Schon, 1983; Tremmel, 1993). In this sense, it seeks to inte­ grate styles of policy analysis and research in innovative ways. Rather than pro­ viding distinct explanations or hypotheses to test, it encourages emancipatory challenges in diverse domains, including social policy planning, public adminis­ tration, housing, and urban planning (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1972; Bernstein, 1978; Fay, 1975, 1977; Forester, 1993; Fromm, 1941; Giddens, 1984).

Critical social policy as a process (Figure 14.1) differs distinctly from positivist processes in that it challenges socioeconomic injustice, inequality, and the status quo while it promotes income, wealth, and power redistrib­ utions favoring the powerless and disadvantaged:

The critical social policy cyclical process depicted above consists of three sequential phases: Inputs (A), Throughputs (B), and Outputs (C). Arrows 1 through .12 indicate the influence and direction of components and phases. Each phase leads to the next, framing its activities. Finally, feedback loops lead back to A. The cycle is then repeated until its goals are achieved. Thus, phase (A) sets specific societal values and ideologies (e.g., social justice, equality, empowerment, and self-determination) as inputs or intervention goals. These goals frame and guide the analysis of institutional power rela­ tions (phase B), including policy plans and their implementation. For example, the decrease of poverty (perceived as the power, income, class, and state dominance of societal elites) necessitates the design of institutional

226 I I,

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOCIAL POLICY

A B c Values and Ideology Institutional Arrangements Distributive Justice

(Input) (Throughput) (Output)

2 Economic 7 Institutions

Mixed Economy

' Social Justice,

5 GovernanceEquality,

andMarxist, Political

Social Well~Being

Feminist, 1 3 Institutions 8. Institutions . . Liberated Anti~ Community

Critical Social Care discriminatory

Theory Activism

Social Liberation

Values

12

of the State

6

4 Spatial

Institutions11 Geographic 9

Egalitarianism

10 t

Figure 14.1 A Critical Social Policy Model

policy changes and implementation of plans to increase social inclusion and the incomes of the poor. Phase (C) is concerned with desired outputs and redistributive justice (power, income, and the well-being of groups and neighborhoods) to empower the poor. Through feedback loops (arrows 10 through 12) outcomes are· evaluated by maki.ng comparisons to inputted goals (A). If poverty is not sufficiently reduced by given interventions, input and throughput adjustments are made, and the circular process (A to C) is repeated until desired goals are achieved.

Critical Social Policy in Welfare State Disco1.11rse

Critical social policy discourse is reflected in critical explanations of the nature, outcomes, and future of welfare states in advanced capitalist countries. These explanations have facilitated a major appraisal of government social welfare programs in tl1ese countries. The four socioeconomic developments in the post-World War II era, which were described earlier, explain fluctuations in the trend toward greater or lesser state interventions in the social welfare field. The social coalition of elitist forces in the early postwar decades about world­ wide reconstruction, and ways to meet human needs, supported expansions of. the welfare state in the 1950s and 1960s within advanced capitalist countries,

227 14. Critical Social Policy

including the United States, Britain, Swedeu, and Denmark. Social welfare reform and the capitalist market seemed to coexist.

The disintegration of the social coalition in the 1970s and 1980s, the shift to the political right, and economic globalization supported radical right­ wing constructions in welfare states and social expenditures. Understandably, this raised serious questions about the potential of market and welfare state coexistence, notably about the continuance of the welfare state as advocated by Fabian and Titmussian assumptions. Further analyses based on critical. approaches and especially class, race, and gender power issues provide insightful aud persuasive explanations of the nature and future of the welfare state in advanced capitalism. The central focus of such analyses relates to the key social divisions of class, race, and gender (Ginsburg, 1992; Iatridis, 1994; Leonard, 1997; Olofsson, 1988; Taylor, 1996; Williams, 1989).

Critical accounts of the welfare state in a post-Enlightenment culture have reached five major conclusions. First, it has been shown by critical scholars that welfare states operate in the context of a patriarchal and racially structured capitalism. Having institutionalized class, race, and gen­ der divisions and inequalities, their structures are dominated by common elements shared by wealthy capitalist states, notably by patriarchally and racially structured capitalism. Second, the function of state welfare in advanced capitalism is the interpretation and application of the political consensus (ruling class) in order to contain or restructure class relations. A third conclusion is that the rnling class (the advantaged) favors residual, paternalistic, and sexist social welfare policies, while the working class (the disadvantaged) and social movements favor socially just, democratic approaches and adequate standards.

Fourth, welfare states are products of a combination of working-class strnggle and capital's requirements for the reproduction of labor power. Capital is engaged in struggles for profits and fair competition, while the working class is involved in struggles for a decent standard of living and a more egalitarian sharing of society's output. Welfare states are structnred by requirements necessary to the continued survival of modern ~apitalism. This ·contrasts sharply with functionalist analyses that see state welfare as fulfilling functions (functionalism) essential for the maintenance of political consensus, social integration, and economic equilibrium and growth. It also contrasts with the notion (Fabian and Titmussian in nature) that social wel­ fare represents the rights of citizenship and promotes social solidarity.

Finally, social welfare expands or contacts as a response of governments to pressures from class conflicts, including organized labor, corporatist coalitions, and social movements. In brief, governments respond to pres­ sures from the prerequisites of capitalist markets for profit and are thus pushed into (or away from) expansion of social welfare policies and pro­ grams. In this context, state welfare in the United States developed because of two peaks of popular pressure and social reform: the New Deal of the 1930s and the rapid expansion of social programs in the Great Society era of the 1960s.

228 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOCIAL POLICY

Guidelines for Reconstructing Social Welfare

Critical social policy has typically focused most of its attention on pro­ viding a comprehensive critique of social welfare iu welfare states under current conditions of advanced capitalism. As a brief analysis of critical social policy literature indicates, the future of state welfare and the articu­ lation of specific proposals for its future have received less attention.

Notably, the conclusion that welfare states epitomize the requirements of capitalism for profit and survival at the expense of the poor and powerless does not suggest a bright future for reforms of current residual social wel­ fare systems. Is it perhaps an oxymoron to perpetuate an inherently flawed system by cosmetic changes? The path "from critique to solution" is typi­ cally far more unpredictable, and most authors are understandably reluc­ tant to predict future events. This includes providing solutions to complex and evolving issues that depend on rather uncertain socioeconon1ic para­ meters. Nevertheless, critical social policy writers have suggested some guidelines for restructuring social welfare.

The main thrust of these suggestions ab.out the future of social welfare is organized around the issue of postmodernism, state power, and capitalist requirements (Ginsburg, 1992; Leonard, 1997). There are five overarching notions of this thrust. First, the old welfare state, once the epitome of moral progress in democratic societies, is no longer the ideal. Some of the basic ideological foundations of current welfare states have disintegrated as a result of challenges to modernism by profound social and cultural changes. These challenged principles include social democratic assumptions of a Fabian and Titmussian nature, which optimistically believe in an ever­ expanding, universalistic welfare .state based on altruism to improve stan­ dards of living of all citizens, notably the working class (Leonard, 1997).

Second, the goal of reconstruction reflects the tenets of critical social pol­ icy critiques of welfare states. These critiques aim to achieve an emancipa­ tory social welfare that would be built from the ground floor upward rather than from a centralist plan dictated by those in positions of pow~~. This goal contrasts sharply to typical cosmetic social reform efforts based on and implemented by administrative and professional expertise. Community par­ ticipation ·is an absolute prerequisite for this new approach to social welfare.

Third, Marxist and feminist perspectives can provide adequate ethical guidelines for reconstructing an emancipatory postmodern welfare state. Postmodernism, in the context of Marxism and feminism, can provide the theoretical framework of action and political struggle in the field of social welfare (Leonard, 1997). Fourth, in the proposed emancipatory concept, social welfare is visualized as a process (rather than a plan), which is not exclusionary, respects diversity and diverse ways of meeting human needs, is not subordinated to old or new kinds of domination or expert power, and calls for the participation of people to determine their own welfare.

Finally, recognizing the central importance of political struggles .and pressures, and considering the critique of state and political parties as instruments of domination, critical thinkers propose that the proposed

229 14. Critical Social Policy

emancipatory social welfare system requires the construction of a political party as a 1'confederation of diversities." This is viewed as an organized political alliance of a wide range of social movements, each pursuing its own vision-but representing a united front of solidarity committed to a struggle of mass politics to meet common human needs and interests (Leonard, 1997). In brief, social justice and liberal equality cannot be rejected. If either is, society is left with two bleak alternatives: rely on the logic and institutions of the economic market or on public provisions deliv­ ered by professionals and bureaucrats.

Critical analysis in social policy constitutes a philosophical and social science platform for egalitarian, insightful, and convincing explanations of the nature, the development, and consequences of social policies and prOgrams in advanced capitalist societies. Despite current swings to the Radical Right and policies of drastic reductions in state social expenditures in most advanced capitalist countries (or maybe because of them), critical theory and social pol­ icy have maintained and increased their ability to challenge the status quo and have offered proposals for reforming the social economy. In the last seven decades, critical writers have made several innovative ontological and episte­ mological contributions to social science inquiry. Their commitment to social liberation movements and their compelling analyses of the changing nature of advanced capitalism have contributed to the understanding of the inherent socioeconomic domination reflected in current societal institutions. The social issues associated with current critical social policy analyses have long standing in social science literature, but critical theoretical frames for inquiry transcend the traditional approaches of the past.

Because these approaches clearly exceed the traditional limits of main­ stream social policy planning, critical theory approaches have evoked loy­ alty from proponents and hostility from opponents. Whether for or against critical social policy, we must not ignore it. The fact that critical theory is still vibrant for almost seven decades after its development in Frankfurt, Germany, testifies to its utility.

However, certain methodological and conceptual questions in emerging critical approaches require further debate. Even those who support critical analysis argue for more methodological and theoretical clarity. Opponents argue that, in practice, critical social policy is less of a methodology than a comn1itment or vision. Its actual applications, in this view, are vague and unclear about the methodology and tools needed to guide specific opera­ tions. They also argue that its commitment to advocacy for the oppressed and powerless can be dysfunctional in a pluralistic society where many power conflicts prevail. By necessity, they argue, critical analysis ignores ideologies and interests of other social classes and population groups. Critical social policy literature reflects arguments both for and against welfare states. Is this an antithesis and oxymoron or rather a harmonious,

230 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOCIAL POLICY

symbiotic coexistence? While viewing the welfare state as fnndamentally oppressive (notably for poor people, blacks, women, and ethnic minorities), supporters also argue that welfare states can generate positive gains in social justice and equality (notably as a result of pressure from low-income groups and the bottom of the social stratification pyramid) in the sense that racial and· gender inequalities would be greater without the social policy interventions that characterize welfare states.

From a critical perspective, the welfare state embodies and reflects cap­ italist patriarchal and racist domination. Having institutionalized ruling class interests, welfare state policies and programs represent capitalist power structures. This raises the issue about the fnture of welfare states in capitalism. Can the welfare state be radically transformed within capi­ talist structures? Does egalitarian social welfare reform necessitate a dif­ ferent environment of social economy as a prerequisite for substantive change? Critical writers do not believe that the state or the economic mar­ ket can be the principle around which to organize future social welfare. This leaves the community as the fundamental alternative for building radical social welfare reform. If so, what community-oriented approaches are both feasible and effective given the trend toward globalization? Community coalitions, partnerships, and federated action have yet to produce viable and new directions for reform. Are new political commu­ nity or party organizations a realistic possibility in the immediate fnture? Only time will tell.

Abramovitz, M. (1996). Under attack, fighting back: Women and welfare in the United States. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Ackerman, F. (1982). Reaganomics: Rhetoric vs. reality. Boston: South End Press. Adler, F. (1964). Positivism. InJ. Gould & W. L. Kolb (Eds.), Dictionary of the social

sciences (pp. 520-522). New York: Free Press. Adorno, T., & Horkbeimer, M. (1972). The dialectic of the enlightenment. London:

New Left Books. Allan, J., Pease, B., & Briskman, L. (2003) Critical social work: An introduction to

theories and practices. c:;:rows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Ammassari, P. (1992). Epistemology. In E. F. Borgatta (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sociol­

ogy (Vol. 1, pp. 550-554). New York: Macmillan. Baines, D. (2000). Everyday practices of race, class, and gender: Struggles, skills, and

radical social work. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 11(2), 5-27. Bernstein, R. J. (1978). The restructuring ofsocial and political theory. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press. Billings, D. (1992). Critical theory. In E. F. Borgatta (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sociology

(Vol. 1, pp. 384-390). New York: Macmillan. Blaug, R. {1995). Distortion of the face to face: Communicative reasons and social

work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 25, 423--439. Brown, D. (2001). National belonging and cultural difference: South Africa and the

global imaginary. Journal of Southem African Studies, 27(4), 757-769.

231 14. Critical Social Policy

Browne, C. (2002, July 10). Can democratization lead to another form ofglobaliza­ tion? Habermas and Giddens on the discontinuities of late-modernity. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association World Congress, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Clarke, M., & Islam, S. M. N. (2004). Economic growth and social welfare: Operationalising normative social choice theory. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Code, L. {1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Comstock, D. E. (1982). A method for critical research. Jn E. Bredo & W. Feinberg (Eds.), Knowledge and values in social and educational research (pp. 370-390). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Davis, L. (1985). Female and male voices in social work. Social Work, 30(2), 106-113. Dear, R. B., Briat; K. H., & Van Ry, A. (1986, March). Policy practice: A "new"

method coming of age. Paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting, Council On Social Work Education, Miami, FL.

Dow, B., & McDonald, J. (2003). Social support or structural change? Social work theory and research on care-giving, Australian Social Work, 56(3), 197-208.

Dubois, B., & Duelli-Klein, R. (1983 ). Passionate scholarship: Notes on values, knowing, and method. In G. Bowles & R. Duelli-Klein (Eds.), Theories in women's studies (pp. 105'-116). Boston: Routledge and Kegan.

Dro~ Y. (1971). Design for policy sciences. New York: Elsevier. Dybicz, P. (2004). Ethical consumption within critical social policy. Journal of

Progressive Human Services, 15(2), 25-43. Eckstein, H. (1968). Political science and public policy. In I. de Sola Pool (Ed.),

Contemporary political science: Toward empirical theory (pp. 121-165). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ehrenreich, B., & Pivin, F. F. (1984). The feminization of poverty. Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies.

El-Ojeili, C., & Hayden, P. (2007). Critical theories of globalization. London: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Evans, A. (1991). Alternatives to bed and breakfast: Temporary housing solutions for homeless people. London: National Housing and Town Planning Council.

Fay, B. (1975). Social theory and political practice. Birkenhead, UK: Allen & Unwin. Fay, B. (1977). How people change themselves: The relationship between critical

theory and its audience. In T. Ball (Ed.), Political theory and praxis: New per­ spectives (pp. 200-233). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Fenby, B. L. (1991). Feminist theory, critical theory and management's romance with the technical. Affilia 6(1), 20-37.

Figueira-McDonough, J. (1993). Policy practice: The neglected side of social work intervention. Social Work, 38, 179-188.

Fook, J. (1999). Transforming social work practice. London: Routledge. Foreste1; J. (Ed.). (1987). Critical theory and public life. Cambridge: MIT Press. Forester, J. (Ed.). (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice:

Toward a cr~tical pragmatism. Albany: State University of New York Press. Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock. Freire, P. (1986). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York:

Continuum. Frey, G. A. (1987, March). Toward a conceptual framework for policy-related social

work practice. Paper presented at the Community Organization and Social Administration Symposium, Council on Social Work Education, St. Louis, MO.

I T

232 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOCIAL POLICY i

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrai; Straus & Giroux. Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. New York: Farrar & Rinehart. Gibson, J. L. (1986). Pluralistic intolerance in America: A reconsideration.

Am.erican Politics Quarterly, 14, 267-293. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structura- i ·

tion. Cambridge, UI<: Polity Press. Ginsburg, N. (1979). Class, capital, and social policy. London: Macmillan. Ginsburg, N. (1992). Divisions of welfare: A critical introduction to comparative

social policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gladstone, D. (2001). Social policy at fifty: Postwar to postmodern. Work,

Employment and Society, 15(3), 653-659. Gough, I. (1979). The political economy of the welfare state. London: Macmillan. Gough, I., & Thomas, T. (1993). Cross-national variation in need satisfaction.

Manchester, UI(: University of Manchester. Greenwood, E. (1995). Social science and social work: A theory of their relationship.

Social Service Review, 29, 20-33. Haacke, J. (2005). The Frankfurt school and international relations: On the central­

ity of recognition. Review of International Studies, 31(1), 181-194. Haar, C., & Iatridis, D. (1974). Housing and the poor in suburbia: Public policy at

the grass roots. Boston: Bellinger. Habermas, J. (1970). Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry, 13,

360-375. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. (J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston:

Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1973). Theory and practice (J. Viestel, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and practice. London: Heinemann. Haynes, K. S., & Mickelson, J. S. (1986). Affecting change: Social workers in the

pol(tical arena. New York: Longman. Healy, IC., & Leonard, P. (2000). Responding to uncertainty: Critical social work

education in the postmodern habitat. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 11(1), 23-48.

Hugman, R. (2001). Post-welfare social work? Reconsidering post-modernism, post­ Fordism and social work education. Social Work Education, 20(3), 321-333.

Iatridis, D. (1974). Housing the poor in suburbia: Public policy at the grass roots. Boston: Bellinger.

Iatridis, D. (1983). Neoconservatism revisited. Social Work, 28, 101-103. Iatridis, D. (1988). The new social deficit: Neoconservatism's policy of social under­

development. Social Work Journal, 33(1), 11-15. Iatridis, D. (1994). Social policy: Institutional context of social development and

human services. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Iatridis, D. (1995). Policy practice. In R. L. Edwards & J. G. Hopps (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1855-1866). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Jansson, B. (1984). Theory and practice ofsocial welfare policy: Analysis, processes, and cun·ent issues. Be1mont, CA: Wadsworth.

Jansson, B. (1994). Social policy: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Johnson, B., Murie, A., & Naumann, L. (1991). A typology of homelessness: A report to Scottish Homes. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Homes.

233 14. Critical Social Policy

ICellner, D. (1989). Critical theory, Marxis1n and modernity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

ICellner, D. (1990). Critical theory and the crisis of social theory. Sociological Perspectives, 33, 11-33.

ICincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. L. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. Jn N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 138-154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

· ICoivisto, J., & Valiverronen, E. (1996, Fall). The resurgence of critical theories of the public sphere. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 20(2), 18-35.

Kolb, W L. (1964). Science. In}. Gould & W. L. Kolb (Eds.), Dictionary of the social sciences (pp. 620-622). New York: Free Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chi~ago Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A preview of policy sciences. New York:-American Elsevier. Lather, P. (1991). Getting s1nart: Feminist research and pedagogy within the post­

modern. New York: Routledge. Lekachman, R. (1982). Greed is not enough: Reaganomics. New York: Pantheon. Leonard, P. (1994). Knowledge, power, and post-modernism: Implications for

the practice of~ critical social work education. Canadian Social Work Review, 44, 11-26.

Leonard, P. (1996). New approaches to welfare theory. Canadian Social Work Review, 13(2), 246-247.

Leonard, P. (1997). Postmodern welfare. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Leonard, P. (2001). The future of critical social work in uncertain conditions. Critical

Social Work, 2(1). Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.criticalsocial work.con1

Lerner, D. J., & Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lewis, L. {2001, November 1-3). Neoliberalism: Latin A1nerica's nightmare. Paper presented at the Conference on Interrogating the Globalization Project, Iowa Memorial Union, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

Lukacs, G. (1971). History and class consciousness (R. Livingstone, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original work published 1923)

Lucas, J. (1993). Searching for answers. Open Mind, 63, 17. MacGregor, S. (2005). The welfare state and neo-liberalism. In A. Saad-Filho &

D. Johnston (Eds.), Neoliberalism: A critical reader (pp. 142-148). London: Pluto Press.

Marcuse, H. (1996). Eros and civilization. Boston: Beacon Press. Martin, J. A. (2004). Critical reflection and research on work-family issues in

Saskatchewan and Canada: The case for caring with equality. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(09), 3497 A.

Masson, H. (1990). Training for co1npetence in child protection work. Social Work Education, 9(1), 35-43.

Mooney, G., Scott, G., & Willia1ns, C. (2006). Introduction: Rethinking social pol­ icy through devolution. Critical Social Policy, 26(3), 483-497.

Morgain, C. A. (1994). Enlightenment for emancipation: A critical theory of se_lf­ formation. Family Relations, 43, 325-335.

Mubarak, A. R. (2003). Malaysia's social policies on mental health: A critical theory. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 17(1), 55-72.

234 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOCIAL POLICY

Mullaly, B. (2001). Confronting the politics of despair: Toward the reconstruction of progressive social work in a global economy and postmodern age. Social Work Education, 20(3), 303-320.

Mul!ender, A., & Ward, D. (1991). Self-directed group w01"k: Users take action for empowerment. London: Whiting and Bird.

Nagel, Ji. (1961). The structure ofscience. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Neal, J. (1997). Homelessness and theory reconstructed. Housing Studies, 12(1),

47-61. Nulrnan, E. (1983). Family therapy and advocacy: Directions for the future. Social

Work, 28, 19-22. Olofsson, G. (1988). After the working~class movement: The new social movements.

Acta Sociologica, 31(1), 15-34. Pascal, G. (1991). Social policy: A feminist analysis. London: Routledge. Pierson, P. (1994). Dismantling the welfare state? Reagan, Thatchei; and the politics

of retrenchment. Cambridge, 01(: Cambridge University Press. Piven, R, & Cloward, R. (1971). Regulating the poor. New York: Vintage. Piven, E, & Cloward, R. (1977). Poor people's movements. New York: Vintage. Piven, F., & Cloward, R. (1996). Welfare reform and the new class war. In M. B. Lykes

(Ed.), Myths about the powerlessness: Contesting social inequalities (pp. 72-86). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1990 ). Whose future? Whose past? Notes on critical theory and methodology. In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 46-66). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Profitt, N. J. (2000). Survivors of woman abuse: Compassionate fires inspii:e col­ lective action for social change. Journal ofProgressive Human Services, 11 (2), 77-102.

Raymond, H. (1968, December 15). Sociologist sees intellectual peril. New York Times, p. 11.

Roberts, H. (1990). Doing feminist research. London: Routledge. Rossiter, A. B. (1996). A perspective in critical social work. Journal of Proiressive

Human Services, 7(2), 23-41. Rousseas, S. (1982). The political econo1ny of Reaganomics: A critique. Armonk,

NY: M. E. Sharpe. Sands, R. G., & Soloman, P. (2001). Social work curriculum and psychiatric reha­

bilitation. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills, 5(3), 495-513. Schon, D. A. (1983). The refiective practitioner: Hotv professionals think in action.

New York: Basic Books. Seitz, J. (2002). Global issues (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Son1mervill, P. (1992). Homelessness and the meaning of home: Roof1essness or

rootlessness? International Journal of Urban and Regional Researchj 16(4), 529-539.

Taylor, D. (Ed.). (1996). Critical social policy: A reader. London: Sage. Tremmel, R. (1993 ). Zen and the art of reflective practice in teacher education.

Harvard Educational Review., 63, 434-458. c Tropman, J. E. (1987). Policy analysis: Methods and techniques In A. Minahan et al.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of social work (18th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 268-283). Silver Spring, MD: NASW Press.

Turner,]. H. (1985). ln defense of positivism. Sociological Theory, 3(2), 24-30.

235 14. Critical Social Policy

Turne1; J. H. (1992). Positivism. In E. F. Borgatta & M. Borgatta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 1509-1512). New York: Macmillan.

Tyson, 1(. B. (1992). A new approach to relevant scientific research for practitioners: The heuristic paradigm. Social Work, 37(6), 541-556.

Wahab, S. (2005). Motivational interviewing and social work practice, Journal of Social Work, 5(1), 45-60.

Weimer, D., & Vining, S. {1992, Spring). Welfare econon1ics as the foundation for public policy analysis: Incomplete and flawed but nevertheless desirable. Journal of Socioeconomics, 21(1), 25-37.

Wexler, P. (1991). Critical theo1y now. Philadelphia: Palmer. White, S. K. (1988).. The recent work of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press. Wilding, P. (1997). The welfare state and the conservatives. Political Studies, 46,

716-726. Williams, F. (1989). Social policy: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Woodside-Jiron, H. (2004). Language, power, and participation: Using critical dis­

course analysis to make sense of public policy. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduc­ tion to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 173-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wyers, N. L. (1991). Policy practice in social work: Models and issues. Journal of Social Work Education, 27, 241-250.