| ESRC
RESEARCH GROUP ON CARE, VALUES AND THE FUTURE OF WELFARE
University of Leeds
Workshop
Paper No 10
Prepared for Workshop Three
Analysing Policy Change and Implementation
Friday 11 February 2000
ALAN DEACON
CAVA AND THE MORAL REORDERING OF WELFARE UNDER 'NEW LABOUR'
CAVA's contract with the ESRC requires us to 'develop research
findings into policy recommendations'. It also stipulates
that the Research Group will be responsible for
'providing
input to public policy debates, to highlight the contribution
of a major social science investment to important issues
of public interest'.
It
is, of course, far too early to consider the nature of such
policy recommendations. There has, however, been some discussion
at previous workshops of the uses which may be made of CAVA's
findings, and of the reception they may receive from 'New
Labour'.1
What
follows is a very preliminary attempt to consider these issues.
It begins with a brief review of the large and growing literature
on New Labour and welfare reform and the family. The paper
goes on to suggest that some aspects of New Labour are likely
to be receptive to the focus and approach of the CAVA project.
These include New Labour's stress upon the active moral agent
and its insistence that a new welfare settlement must be underpinned
by an explicit statement of values and informed by a developed
and articulated social morality. Other elements of New Labour
are likely to be at best resistant to CAVA's arguments - most
notably its judgementalism and its recurrent flirtation with
a conservative moralism regarding 'family values'. Finally
(and with some trepidation) the paper returns to the question
of how CAVA's analyses of the changing patterns of partnering
and parenting may be accommodated within a communitarian -
and New Labour - understanding of the balance between personal
autonomy and social order. It must be emphasised, however,
that the paper is highly speculative. What it presents is
a conjecture rather than an argument.
A. COMMENTARIES UPON NEW LABOUR
There has been a plethora of academic and journalistic commentary
on New Labour. The focus of much of this literature has been
upon New Labour's political identity: what demarcates New
from Old Labour? What are the continuities and discontinuities
between Thatcherism and New Labour? A more recent but growing
sub-set of this literature concerns the relationship between
New Labour and the New Liberalism of 1906-14.
A
particularly striking feature of these commentaries is the
number of typologies and classificatory schema that have been
produced. There is neither the time nor the space to reproduce
these here, nor are they all relevant to CAVA's concerns.
It is worth noting, however, that the great majority of these
constitute variations on a common theme, they present different
arrangements of the same core elements. Indeed Michael Freedon
has recently argued that the same is true of analyses of centre-left
politics in general, and has been so since the early years
of the twentieth century. There are, he says,
a
large number of common-ground configurations in which the
notions of community, liberty, welfare, and the sphere of
the state are mutually related. Each little shift in emphasis,
in prioritising one value over another, in associating some
of these ideas more closely and separating others, results
in a different ideological balance (1999, p. 151/2).
For
the purposes of this paper, the literature on New Labour can
be summarised most conveniently under three headings; intellectual
influences, pivotal concepts and ideas, and government practice
and style.
A.1
Intellectual influences
Commentators have discussed four discrete and sometimes conflicting
influences upon New Labour; European Social democracy, ideas
about welfare dependency, Christian socialism, and Communitarianism.
Of these Communitarianism has attracted by far the most attention
and is generally regarded as the most significant influence.
A.1.1. Communitarianism
Driver
and Martell have argued that Communitarianism is
'at
the heart of New Labour's post-Thatcherite politics because
it combines a critique of postwar social democracy with
a critique of liberalism - both the North American rights-based
liberalism associated with John Rawls and the neo-liberalism
associated with F A Hayek (1998, p. 29).
At one and the same time, they suggest, Communitarianism represents
'New Labour's answer to Thatcherism' and 'Blair's rebuff to
Old Labour'. In respect of welfare they and a number of other
writers have highlighted the ways in Communitarianism's emphasis
upon duties, commitments and responsibilities has underpinned
New Labour's moves to link benefit entitlements to the fulfillment
of specific conditions regarding personal behaviour (Driver
and Martell, 1997; Dwyer, 1998; Dwyer and Heron, 1999; Lister,
1998a). Also significant, however, has been the influence
of Communitarianism in reinforcing particularly Tony Blair's
preoccupation with rebuilding popular support for welfare
through moral argument and the promotion of an 'enlightened
self interest' (see 2.2. below).
A.1.2
Christian Socialism
In
contrast, the influence of Christian socialism has sometimes
seemed to be more apparent to individual politicians and Christian
socialists themselves than it has to outside observers. Ministers
such as Blair, Straw, Smith and Field have been quick to point
to the Christian roots of their thinking, and Christian socialists
such as Bryant (1998) and Wilkinson (1999) have been eager
to claim them as their own (at least until the Section 28
debacle). In the past I have argued that Christian Socialism
was a critical influence. The argument was that the Christian
Socialist tradition has at its core a tension between an incarnational
theology which holds that all should enjoy equal respect by
virtue of their common relationship with the Creator, and
an insistence that all remain responsible moral agents whatever
their social and economic circumstances. In consequence it
can be held to support a policy stance which recognises the
importance of structural inequalities and yet remains 'hard
headed' or 'tough minded' about behaviour. In truth it was
always difficult to distinguish between the impact of this
tradition and that of communitarianism, and it is probable
that the significance of Christian Socialism has declined
in recent years. This is particularly true in the case of
welfare reform following the demise of Field and the almost
complete ascendancy of the more pragmatic, less moralistic
approach of Gordon Brown (see A.2.2 below). In the
case of the family the Christian Socialist tradition has become
increasingly associated with the apocalyptic writings of Dennis,
Halsey, and others (Mann and Roseneil, 1994; Deacon and Mann,
1997).
A.1.3
European social democracy
The
relative influence of European and American thinking on New
Labour has been fiercely debated. Both White (1998) and Giddens
(1998), for example, have argued that it was Europe and especially
Scandinavia which provided the model for the welfare to work
scheme, whilst Sasson (1999) and Room (1994) have discussed
the broader impact of social democratic - and particularly
Christian Social Democratic - ideas. My own view is that the
US influence has been paramount, not least because of the
importance of the writers discussed in the next section (1999;
2000).
A.1.4
Theorists of dependency
I
use this term to refer to the various American conservatives
whose work I discussed in Workshop Paper Four, notably Charles
Murray and Lawrence Mead. Their ideas about welfare dependency
and the underclass had a profound impact upon all points of
the party political spectrum in Britain. They all but furnished
some members of the Conservative government with a new vocabulary,
as the then Secretary of State for Social Services, John Moore,
made a series of speeches which did little more than précis
first Murray's Losing Ground and then Mead's Beyond
Entitlement (Deacon, 1991). Moreover, Margaret Thatcher
recorded in her memoirs how these ideas reinforced her conviction
that there was no conflict between individualism and social
responsibility (1993, p. 627). If anything, however, the impact
upon the centre and left was more fundamental still. More
than anyone else it was the American dependency theorists
who pushed onto the agenda issues which had been neglected,
indeed all but suppressed, by the then dominant Titmuss Paradigm
(Deacon and Mann, 1999).
Without
doubt the origins of New Labour's rethinking on welfare lay
in successive election defeats and in changing perceptions
of what the electorate was prepared to pay for. But it also
marked its response to the challenge of Murray, Mead and other
American conservatives. Indeed, one of the attractions of
Communitarianism to some New Labour politicians has always
been that it allows them to voice arguments about dependency
and personal responsibility whilst distancing themselves from
the people who first put such issues on the agenda.
A.2. Pivotal Concepts and Ideas
A
recurring criticism of New Labour is that it lacks a unifying
theme. David Marquand, for example, claims that if the Blair
government is to fulfill the hopes generated by its election
triumph, it will need
More
than a heterogeneous rag-bag of detailed policies - welfare
to work here; Scottish devolution there; elected Mayors
in one corner; ferocious centralisation in education in
another. It will need a coherent broad approach, a governing
philosophy, an ideological compass. And so far it has nothing
of the kind (1999, p. 12).
Whatever
the merits of Marquand's claim, there is little doubt that
New Labour has been prone to 'big ideas', both in opposition
and in government. Some, such as Stakeholding, have been flexi-words,
the meaning of which changed from one advocate to another.
Others, such as modernisation, have become ubiquitous, a label
attached to any and every initiative or development. There
are, however, two big ideas which are relevant here. The first
is New Labour's pursuit of 'third way' and the second is its
re-interpretation - or appropriation - of the concept of social
exclusion.
A.2.1
The 'third way'
New
Labour has invested much intellectual and political capital
in the idea of a third way, and both academia and the media
have responded in kind. The questions as to whether there
is a third way; what it is, and what it might become have
been debated in Prime Ministerial speeches (Blair, 1998) academic
books and edited collections (Giddens, 1998; Powell, 1999)
on-line discussion networks (Halpern and Mikosz, 1998), a
series of ESRC Research Seminars and innumerable press articles
and radio and TV soundbites.
The
'authorised version' is that the third way is a renewal of
social democracy, an adaptation of the values of the centre/left
to contemporary social and economic conditions. For Giddens
it seeks to 'transcend both old-style social democracy and
neo-liberalism' (1998, p. 26). For Blair it repudiates 'the
curious alliance of Right and Old left' that 'saw wealth creation
as in opposition to social justice' and against which I have
'struggled against all my political life' (1999, p. 11). An
intriguing formulation is put forward by John Lloyd. He notes
that New Labour's pursuit of the third way has lead it to
stress themes commonly associated with the right - duty, responsibility,
morality. He goes on, however, to argue that this reflects
the 'paradoxical nature of our present debate'
It
is true, though it is over-simply true, that the left has
moved onto right-wing territory. It is also true, however,
that it seeks to pursue leftist goals from within it - goals
such as greater equality of opportunity' (1998, p. 36).
In
policy terms the third way is normally understood as an approach
which encompasses and reconciles policies and approaches previously
regarded as antagonistic. In the case of welfare this implies
a recognition that there is a need for both a broader redistribution
of income and for policies which are focused upon and demand
more of the long-term poor. Debates about dependency and inequality
are no longer seen as mutually exclusive but as addressing
different dimensions of the same problem.
2.
The
characteristics of the third way have the subject of several
of the typologies mentioned earlier. It has also prompted
a rash of acronyms. Julian Le Grand (1998) has argued, in
effect, that the third way is simply what New Labour does,
and that it can be summarised as CORA - Community, Opportunity,
Responsibility and Accountability. Ruth Lister (1998b) has
described it as the road to RIO - Rights, Incentives, and
Obligations. Others have produced classifications which on
which to locate differing versions of the third way (Driver
and Martell, 1999) or to distinguish the third way from new
right and old left (Powell, 1999).
A.2.2
Social exclusion
In
March 1999 Blair pledged that New Labour would 'end child
poverty' within 20 years. This marked the dramatic re-introduction
of the P-word into British politics and also set a demanding
target. 3. Up to
this point, New Labour had talked almost entirely about social
exclusion. Like the third way, New Labour's use of this term
has produced much discussion, several typologies and a few
acronyms. Again like the third way, it is generally acknowledged
that New Labour has drawn upon a number of conflicting perspectives
or discourses. Fiona, for example, notes that it has
managed
to combine the integrationist emphasis of the French/EU
social exclusion discourse with the "underclass"
notion of neo-liberal poverty discourse, whilst moving away
from the focus on inequality and redistribution of the social
democratic poverty discourse (1998, p.).
Similarly,
Ruth Levitas has distinguished between three discourses of
social exclusion; a moral underclass discourse (MUD), a redistributionist
discourse (RED) and a social integrationist discourse (SID).
She has gone on to castigate as 'punk Durkheimian' New Labour's
preoccupation with paid work and moral regulation (1998).
There is much truth in this judgement (A.1.4 above).
Nevertheless I would argue that it is too harsh an assessment,
and that it fails to recognise the significance of contribution
of the Treasury.
A 2.3 Gordon Brown and welfare reform
Gordon
Brown is a remarkable political animal: a Chancellor of Exchequer
who appears more interested in social policy than in economics
and who has a clearly developed and powerfully articulated
view of the purpose of welfare. Brown's starting point is
that the answer to poverty and exclusion lies in widening
access to paid employment. The long term solution is more
jobs rather than higher benefits and the responsibility of
the government is to 'make work pay' and to ensure that anyone
who can work does work. This, of course, corresponds almost
exactly to what I characterised in my previous paper as the
'welfare as a transistion to work' perspective. Brown, however,
has fused this emphasis upon paid work with a conceptualisation
of social exclusion as exclusion from opportunities. Moreover,
this exclusion from opportunities results in a waste of talent
and human capital which is detrimental to a modern, 'knowledge-based'
economy. Equality of opportunity thus becomes the central
goal, for reasons of both social justice and economic efficiency
(1999).
This
is a view of social exclusion which is both structural - because
people are excluded by deprivations which are transmitted
across generations - and individual - because if people do
not take advantage of the opportunities created by New Labour
they will have excluded themselves. In policy terms it results
in a combination of measures which is more coherent than it
may appear at first sight: compulsion (welfare to work), incentives
(the working family tax credit) and redistribution (increases
in child benefit) 4.
What Brown is not interested in is character, and he has succeeded
in eliminating from the welfare agenda virtually all of the
moralism associated with Frank Field.
It
was this conflict which so delayed the publication of the
Green Paper on welfare reform. When the Green Paper eventually
appeared I argued that its 'stress upon work and its stress
upon the duties and responsibilities of claimants are two
sides of the same coin'.
The
'New Contract for Welfare' is an attempt to restructure
welfare in a form in which it is more likely to retain popular
support… It places great store on the capacity of persuasion
and argument to change values and secure a wider acceptance
of the principles of reciprocity… This an essentially
optimistic project, and it is this underlying optimism which
explains why the Green Paper says relatively little about
the imperfections of human nature which so troubled Frank
Field in opposition (1998, p. 311).
This
proved to be a strikingly (and uncharacteristically!) accurate
prediction. Field was sacked within weeks and in March of
this year the Prime Minister obligingly began his Beveridge
Lecture with the statement
Today
I want to talk to you about a great challenge: how we make
the welfare state popular again (1999, p. 7).
A.2.4 Government practice and style
A
further strand of the literature upon New Labour and welfare
has focused upon the network of think tanks which has grown
up in recent years, and upon the government's use of specialist
advisors (Denham and Garnett, 1998; Desai, 1994). The extent
to which New Labour has drawn upon American experience of
welfare reform has attracted the attention of analysts of
policy transfer (Cox, 1999; Stone, 1999; King and Wickham-Jones,
1999).
B. CAVA AND NEW LABOUR
What, then, does this literature tell us about the degree
of interest and receptivity which New Labour is likely to
show towards the findings and conclusions of the CAVA project.
B.1
Where CAVA might be 'on message'
I
would conjecture that there are three aspects of New Labour
that would lead it to take at least a superficial interest
in the outcomes of CAVA.
B.1.1
The preoccupation with the 'family'
The
first and most obvious is the extraordinary prominence given
to the 'family' in the rhetoric of New Labour and especially
that of its leader. It is all but impossible to read a speech
by Tony Blair on domestic issues without coming across such
phrases as
The
role of government, through the welfare state broadly defined,
is to support good parenting and stable family life (1997,
p. 7).
It
is within the family that we learn that there IS such a
thing as society. And it is upon the values of the extended
family that the Decent Society will be built….The values
of a Decent Society are the values of a strong family unit,
which is why a central objective of any government I lead,
and any Department within it, must be helping family and
community life (1996, p. 13).
This
is not just the usual cliched praise of motherhood and apple
pie. It stems from an essentially communitarian belief in
the importance of moral argument and persuasion in securing
change, and in the critical role of the family in cultivating
the moral senses which makes such moral suasion possible.
B.1.2 The need for a moral underpinning for welfare reform
Tony
Blair has been equally insistent that any new welfare settlement
must be 'based on certain social values, a social morality
fit and right for today's world' (1996, p. 8). It is nonsense
to suggest that such a call new social morality is inherently
conservative. On the contrary, it is a task for the centre/left
because a decent society can be built only on the values of
mutual dependency.
I
believe any society is founded on duty. I know that sounds
a somewhat heavy concept, but we need something more than
merely a contractual relationship between us as citizens
(p. 9).
Such
an acceptance of commitments to others is not an obstacle
to liberty, but a precondition of it.
Real
freedom means that people have real choices, and that requires
a society where people have duties as well as rights.
B.1.3
Active moral agents
There
appears to be a significant measure of commonality between
New Labour's notion of the active welfare subject, and CAVA's
focus upon individuals as active moral agents, who are capable
of exercising moral choices and of formulating 'good enough
solutions' to the moral problems and dilemmas which arise
from their responsibilities as partners and parents.
The
contrast between the active subject who is both demanded and
produced by a modern welfare state and the passive recipient
of old-style social services is a lietmotiv of New Labour.
Nor is it simply a question of the conditions which are imposed
upon claimants. Rather, it is presented as the repudiation
of a tradition of top-down social engineering that has been
rendered obsolete by the complexity and diversity of contemporary
society. New Labour thinking is captured in David Marquand's
brilliant caricature of Fabian social policy 'perilously dependent
on the positivist social sciences of the day'.
Social
scientists, it was assumed, knew or could easily find out
what levers the engineers would have to pull in order to
put their values into practice….Civil society was seen,
all too often, not as an agent but as a patient: an inert
body, lying on an operating table, undergoing social democratic
surgery….It is not possible to re-make society in accordance
with a grand design, since no conceivable grand design can
do justice to the complexity and reflexivity of human behaviour.
Nor is civil society much like a patient….it insisted
on arguing with the surgeon (1999, pp. 16/7).
B.2. Where CAVA is unlikely to be 'on message'
Nothing
in the previous section is meant to suggest that CAVA can
expect to find its policy recommendations hailed as the third
way on the family. There is, however, a sense in which CAVA
is working with the grain of New Labour. It does share its
belief in the centrality of issues around partnering and parenting,
it does seek to develop a moral basis for a new welfare settlement,
and it does see the creative moral agent as central to this
task. What is likely to be much less welcome to the proponents
of New Labour is CAVA's non-judgementalism regarding family
forms and family practices. This is not because New Labour
is necessarily judgemental, but because it is profoundly ambivalent
on these issues.
Kirk
and I explored the basis of this ambivalence in a short article
for Benefits in 1997 (Deacon and Mann, 1997). In essence
our argument was that New Labour in general and Tony Blair
in particular drew upon and articulated two conflicting analyses
of family change; those of moralists such as Etzioni and Sacks
on the one hand and those of the post-traditionalists - Bauman,
Beck and Giddens - on the other.
Whereas
the diversity of contemporary social life is taken as the
starting point for a post-traditional future, new moralists
see it as a fundamental obstacle to establishing an ethically
sound society. Whereas Beck and Giddens treat divorce, lone
parenthood and diverse family forms as inevitable consequences
of modernity which we have to come to terms with, the moralists
regard the same phenomena as catastrophic and abhor the
complacency of those who point to diversity. Thus on the
one hand there is a desire to facilitate and enable more
meaningful choices, on the other there is a desire to firmly
assert traditional moral values that seek to restrain choice
(p. ).
We
concluded that there was a 'central paradox in New Labour
rhetoric'.
It
expresses the commitment of the new moralists to family
values and to personal responsibility, but also echoes the
emphasis placed by post-traditionalists upon difference
and diversity and the irreversibility of the social changes
wrought by modernity (p. ).
This
does not seem an unreasonable interpretation of the Green
Paper on Supporting Families.
C. CONCLUSION: POSSIBLE USES AND ABUSES OF CAVA
This final section of the paper is still more conjectural
than what has gone before. It speculates how CAVA's findings
might be interpreted to shed light on two questions which
underlie much of the family/welfare debate.
- ·
What constraints or limits should be placed upon the pursuit
of private interests?
- ·
Through what informal or legal mechanisms should those limits
be enforced?
What
is distinctive about the communitarianism's (and arguably
New Labour's) answer to these question is the significance
which is attached to the interests of the community as opposed
to those of other individuals. As I understand it (an important
qualification) there are several steps in the argument; (the
quotations are from Selznick (1996).
First
individuals are socially embedded in communities and their
obligations and responsibilities arise 'from social involvements
and commitments'
Our
lives touch each other in many ways, for good or ill, and
we are accountable for the consequences (p. 14).
Second,
the qualities of restraint and self-governance that are essential
for personal autonomy do not arise in isolation. They are
fostered and shaped by interaction with others, and especially
by the expectations of family, friends and local communities.
This cultural capital is ignored by Mill's 'harm principle'
which is concerned only to prevent immediate harm to individuals
and not to protect the moral environment.
It
may well be easier, and apparently more rational, to identify
direct harms to individuals than to offer reasons for, say,
restricting pornography or preserving an atmosphere that
upholds civility as well as freedom. But the want of easy
answers is not, in itself, a want of rationality (p.10).
Third,
it follows that it is possible to argue that particular family
structures impose sufficient social harm to justify the imposition
of informal contraints, or communal action to discourage their
formation. 5. It is
equally possible to argue that they do not generate such costs,
and that existing constraints or forms of discrimination should
be removed. It becomes a matter of evidence. It is on this
basis that Stuart White has argued that this broader formulation
of the harm principle 'still provides the appropriate framework
for approaching issues that have to do with the public regulation
of individual behaviour'. Above all, he claims, it avoids
the danger of 'legal moralism'
using
the law to enforce or otherwise promote a specific conception
of morally correct behaviour as an end in itself, simply
because a majority or some supposedly enlightened minority
happens to think that this conception describes the proper
way to live (1999, p. 176).
It
is, of course, perfectly reasonable to decide not to contribute
to such debates, or not to address this kind of framework
when presenting findings. The danger, however, is that others
may still do so.
NOTES
1. By 'New Labour' I mean not just
Ministers and their advisors but the think tanks, journalists
and academics who have participated in the debates discussed
in this paper. Back
2.
This approach is grounded in the data on the so-called
'dynamics of poverty' which was discussed in Sarah's paper
for the previous workshop (Workshop Paper 7; also Deacon,
1999a). Back
3.
Blair employed a definition of poverty - households below
half average income - which puts the Conservatives' record
in the worst possible light but which is also the one which
makes it hardest to fulfill the commitment. Back.
4.
This is not to deny the complexity of some of Brown's
tax and benefit measures. For a witty critique see Willetts
(2000). Back.
5.
The communitarian philospher William Galston has employed
just such arguments to support a policy of state support the
two parent family - what he terms 'functional traditionaliam'
(See White, 1999). Back.
REFERENCES
T Blair (1996) Speech to CPU Conference, Cape Town 14.10.96
T
Blair (1997) 'The 21st Century Welfare State' Speech to Social
Policy and Economic Performance Conference Amsterdam 24.01.97
T
Blair (1998) The Third Way. New Politics for the New Century
Fabian Society London
T
Blair (1999) 'Beveridge revisited: a welfare state for the
21st century' in R Walker (ed) Ending Child Poverty
Policy Press Bristol
G
Brown (1999) 'Equality - then and now' in D Leonard (ed) Crosland
and New Labour Fabian Society London
C
Bryant (1996) Possible Dreams Hodder and Stoughton,
London
R
Cox (1999) 'Ideas, policy borrowing and welfare reform' Paper
to Conference on Global Trajectories: Ideas, Transnational
Policy Transfer and Models of Wefare Reform' European University
Institute, Florence 25.03.99
A
Deacon (1991) 'The retreat from state welfare' in S Becker
(ed) Windows of Opportunity Child Poverty Action Group,
London
A
Deacon (1998) 'The Green Paper on welfare reform: a case for
enlightened self interest? Political Quarterly 69 3
pp. 306-311.
A
Deacon (1999) 'The influence of European and American ideas
upon New Labour thinking on welfare reform' Paper to Conference
on Global Trajectories: Ideas, Transnational Policy Transfer
and Models of Wefare Reform' European University Institute,
Florence 25.03.99
A
Deacon (2000) 'Learning from the USA? The influence of American
ideas on New Labour thinking on welfare reform' Policy
and Politics ??
A
Deacon and K Mann (1997) 'Moralism and modernity: The paradox
of New Labour thinking on welfare' Benefits 20 pp.
2-6
Deacon
and K Mann (1999) 'Agency, modernity and social policy' Journal
of Social Policy 28: 3 413-435
A
Denham and M Garnett (1998) British Think Tanks and the
Climate of Opinion UCL Press London
R
Desai (1994) 'Second hand dealers in ideas: Think tanks and
Thatcherite hegenomy New Left Review 203 27-64
S
Driver and L Martell (1997) 'New Labour's communitarianisms'
Critical Social Policy 17 : 3 pp. 26-46
S
Driver and L Martell (1998) New Labour: Politics After
Thatcherism Polity Press Oxford
P
Dwyer and E Heron (1999) 'Doing the right thing' Labour and
welfare reform: A new moral order? Social Policy and Administration
(forthcoming, March).
M
Freeden (1999) True blood or false genealogy? New Labour and
British social democratic thought' in A Gamble and T Wright
(eds) The New Social Democracy Political Quarterly/Blackwell
Oxford
A
Giddens (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy
Polity Press, Cambridge
D
Halpern and D Mikosz The Third Way: Summary of the NEXUS
on-line discussion Nexus London
D
King and M Wickham-Jones (1999) 'Bridging the Atlantic: The
Democratic (Party) origins of welfare to work' in M Powell
(ed) New Labour New Welfare State? Policy Press Bristol
J
Le Grand (1998) 'The third way begins with CORA' New Statesman
6.3.98
R
Levitas (1998) The Inclusive Society: Social Exclusion
and New Labour Macmillan London
R
Lister (1998a) From equality to social exclusion: New Labour
and the welfare state' Critical Social Policy 18 2
215-225
R
Lister (1998b) To RIO via the Third Way: the equality and
reform agenda in Blair's and Brown's Britain' Paper to Equality
and Democratic State conference Vancouver November
J
Lloyd (1998) 'Serf no more' in M Novak et al Is There a
Third Way? Institute of Economic Affairs London
K
Mann and S Roseneil (1994) 'Some mothers do ave em: the gender
politics of the underclass debate' Journal of Gender Studies
3 3 317-331
D
Marquand (1999) 'Premature obsequies: social democracy comes
in from the cold' in A Gamble and T Wright (eds) The New
Social Democracy Political Quarterly/Blackwell Oxford
M
Powell (ed) (1999) New Labour New Welfare State? Policy
Press Bristol
D
Sasson (1999) European social democracy and New Labour: Unity
in diversity? in A Gamble and T Wright (eds) The New Social
Democracy Political Quarterly/Blackwell Oxford
P
Selznick (1996) 'Social justice: a Communitarian perspective'
The Responsive Community pp. 13-25
D
Stone (1999) 'Learning lessons, transferring policy and the
international movement of ideas' Paper to Conference on Global
Trajectories: Ideas, Transnational Policy Transfer and Models
of Wefare Reform' European University Institute, Florence
25.03.99
M
Thatcher (1993) The Downing Street Years Harper Collins,
London
M
White (1998) 'What's New, What's Old in the New Deal for the
Unemployed' Paper presented to APPAM Twentieth Research Conference,
New York, October 1998.
S
White (1999) 'Rights and responsibilities: a social democratic
perspective' in A Gamble and T Wright (eds) The New Social
Democracy Political Quarterly/Blackwell Oxford
A
Wilkinson, (1998) Christian Socialism : Scott Holland to
Tony Blair SCM Press, London
F
Williams (1998) 'Agency and structure revisited: Rethinking
poverty and social exclusion' in M Barry and C Hallet (ed)
Social Exclusion and Social Work Russell House London
BACK
|
