Arbor, Vol 191, No 771 (2015)

Tendencias del bienestar social en las sociedades occidentales: la privatización y el reto del Trabajo Social


https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2015.771n1002

Neil Gilbert
University of California at Berkeley, España

Resumen


Este artículo analiza varios aspectos claves de la evolución del panorama de los estados de bienestar modernos, las principales fuerzas sociales que impulsan este cambio, y cómo el cambio es pertinente para el futuro de la práctica del Trabajo Social. Las fuerzas sociales que impulsan el cambio son factores estructurales tales como la transición demográfica y la globalización de la economía, así como variables socio-políticas que implican una comprensión de los efectos no previstos de las políticas sociales y el aumento del valor atribuido al sector privado. Las características centrales del cambio incluyen una modificación de las políticas, que se desplazan desde la protección del trabajo hacia la promoción del trabajo, y el uso cada vez mayor del sector privado en la producción y prestación de servicios sociales. La privatización de la seguridad social y sus implicaciones para la práctica del trabajo social se examinan a la luz de los retos en la negociación de la contratación de servicios.

Palabras clave


privatización; estado de bienestar; análisis de costes unitarios; estado capacitador; contratación; gasto social

Texto completo:


HTML PDF XML

Referencias


Ackerman, S. (1983). Social Services and the Market. Columbia Law Review, 83, 6, pp. 1405-1438.

Adema, W. and Einerhand, M. (1998). The Growing Role of Private Social Benefits. Labour Market and Social Policy - Occasional Papers, 32.Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/804013113766

Cantillon, B. (2011). The Paradox of the Social Investment State. Growth, Employment and Poverty in the Lisbon Era. Journal of European Social Policy, 21, 5, pp.432-449.

Derr, M., Anderson, J., Trippe, C. and Paschal, S. (2000). The Role of Intermediaries in Linking TANF Recipients with Jobs. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

European Commission (2011). Study on social services of general interest: Final report.

Eardley, T. (1997). New Relations of Welfare in the Contracting State: The Marketisation of Services for the Unemployed in Australia. Social Policy Research Center Discussion Paper, 79. Editorial: Social Impact Bonds: Commerce and Conscience. The Economist, February 23, 2013, p.71.

Geurts, S., Kompier, M. and Grundemann, R. (2000). Curing the Dutch Disease? Sickness Absence and Work Disability in the Netherlands. International Social Security Review, 53, 4, pp.79-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-246X.00106

Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way: Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gilbert, N. (2004). Transformation of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gilbert, N. (2012). The American Challenge in Cross-National Perspective. In Hacker, J. and O'Leary, A. (eds.), Shared Responsibility, Shared Risk: Governments, Markets and Shared Responsibility in the 21st Century. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 39-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199781911.003.0003

Gilbert, N. and Terrell, P. (2005). Dimensions of Social Welfare Policy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hirsch, B. and Macpherson, D. (2011). Union Membership and Data Book: Compilations from the CPS2011.Arlington: Bureau of National Affairs.

Holmqvist, M. (2010). The 'active welfare state' and its consequences. European Societies, 12, 2, pp. 209-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616690903388960

Hort, S. and Cohn, D. (1995). Sweden. In Johnson, N. (ed.), Private Markets in Health and Welfare. Oxford: Berg Publishers, pp. 169-202.

Hurd, M., Martorell, P., Delavande, E., Mullen, K. and Langa, K. (2013). Monetary Costs of Dementia in the United States. The New England Journal of Medicine, 368, 14, pp. 1326-1334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1204629 PMid:23550670 PMCid:PMC3959992

Jessop, B. (1994). From Keynesian welfare to the Schumpeterian workfare state. In Burrows, R. and Loader, B. (eds.). Towards a Post-Fordist Welfare State? London: Routledge.

Johnson, N. (1995). The United Kingdom. In Johnson, N. (ed.). Private Markets in Health and Welfare. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

Lehto, J. (1999). Universal Right to Public Social and Health Care Services? In Bouget, D. and Palier, B. (eds.). Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Nordic Europe and France. Paris: DRESS/MiRe.

Lundstrom, T. (2000). Non-governmental Actors, Local Administration, and Private Enterprise: New Models in Delivery of Child and Youth Welfare? Paper presented at the International Conference on Playing the Market Game? University of Bielefeld, March 9 to 11, 2000.

Milward, B. and Provan, K. (1993). The Hollow State: Private Provision of Public Service. In Ingram, H. and Rathgeb Smith, S. (eds.). Public Policy for Democracy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, pp. 222-240.

OECD (2011). The Future of Families to 2030. Projections, Policy Challenges and Policy Options. A synthesis Report. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Slettebo, T. (2000). The Consequences of Marketization on Professional Practice and Identity – a Case Study of Outcontracting in the Residential Child and Youth Protection Servies in Norway. Paper presented at the International Conference on Playing the Market Game? University of Bielefeld, March 9 to 11, 2000.

Weisbrod, B. and Schlesinger, M. (1986). Nonprofit Ownership and the Response to Asymmetric Information: The Case of Nursing Homes. In Rose-Ackerman, S. (ed.). The Economics of Nonprofit Institutions: Studies in Structure and Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.




Copyright (c) 2015 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)

Licencia de Creative Commons
Esta obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional.


Contacte con la revista arbor@csic.es

Soporte técnico soporte.tecnico.revistas@csic.es