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

Neil Gilbert

doi:10.3989/arbor.2015.771n1002

Authors

Neil Gilbert University of California at Berkeley

DOI:

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

Keywords:

privatisation, welfare state, unit-cost analysis, enabling state, contracting, social expenditures

Abstract

The paper analyses several key features of the changing landscape of modern welfare states, the major the social forces driving this change, and how change is pertinent to the future of social work practice. The social forces driving change include structural factors such as the demographic transition and globalisation of the economy, as well as sociopolitical variables that involve an understanding of the unanticipated effects of social policies and the increased value attributed to the private sector. The central characteristics of change include a shift in policies away from the protection of labor and toward the promotion of work and the increasing use of the private sector for the production and delivery of social services. The privatisation of social welfare and its implications for social work practice are examined in the light of the challenges in negotiating service contracts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

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.