Final Report Summary - NL_SOCIAL (The public health implications of neoliberal policy and management on professions and vulnerable populations)
The research project has been largely successful in meeting its ambitious aims and objectives. It has helped to scope and support the development of new skills and expertise in international comparative social work research, exploring areas that have either not been, or certainly not extensively, explored previously. Social work is a young and ambitious profession that is practiced in a variety of differing socioeconomic, political, cultural, historical and religious contexts. The new international definition of social work (IFSW, 2014) recognises that the profession is contextually driven; its global importance; and the idea that this importance has been underpinned by developments such as the Global Agenda (2012). The context of the work undertaken within this project should therefore acknowledge the complexity, vastness and contentiousness of this endeavour, and the importance for such research to highlight the need for a more critical and participatory discourse on the public health implications of neoliberal policy and management on professions and vulnerable populations. The new definition recognises the profession as an “...academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing. The above definition may be amplified at national and/or regional levels” (IFSW, 2014). The importance, therefore, of developing the appropriate research skills and knowledge involved in this project were considered to be key. This was highlighted by one of the team papers, Spolander, G., Engelbrecht, L., Martin, L., Strydom, M., Pervova, I.. Marjanen, P., Tani, P., Adaikalam, F, Sicora, A. (2014) The implications of neoliberalism on social work: reflections from an international research collaboration in six countries. International Social Work, International Social Work 57: 301, DOI: 10.1177/0020872814524964. This paper was highlighted in the development of the Global Agenda Observatory on Social Work and Social Development, and published in the special edition of the International Social Work Journal paper of the Joint World Conference on Social Work, Education and Social Welfare Development in Melbourne, 9 – 12 July 2014.
The following key findings can be highlighted from the research:
• Growth in neoliberalism and neoliberal tenets on a global scale and within social work, social services and welfare policy. This is articulated, experienced and implemented differently in respective countries. The analysis, experience and response of the profession are varied, but in all contexts is poorly theorised and articulated;
• In recent decades, neoliberal reforms, processes of retrenchment and privatization of welfare services have impacted on the relationships and distribution of responsibilities between states, markets, families and communities for the provision of care and access to material support in many countries of the world;
• Broad decrease or rebadging of welfare and government spending in social work; although there are elements of this in every participating country, it is to varying degrees;
• There has been a growth in social work resistance and critical discourse but this is not yet coherently and consistently articulated;
• Professional and international definition of the role of social work is changing – individual to collective, micro to macro, increasing demand for academic training and understanding – this is in contrast to the role of social work in actual practice – increasingly managerial and/or client-focused – also in direct contrast to neoliberal ideals of individualism and individual responsibility;
• WP1 key findings: vulnerability, citizenship and risk/protection are strongly interconnected and also changing over time; vulnerability is socially constructed and largely affected by context, cultural understandings; citizenship and universal rights changing and developing;
• WP2 key findings: The most popular models (Esping-Andersen, Ferrera, etc.) used for comparing social policies across different countries are appropriate for describing the situation in Europe, USA and a few other geographical areas that may be considered culturally close, but their capability to go beyond and cover other regions of the world appears very limited. Information available in the international databases are often not uniform and this makes it difficult to compare different systems of social welfare policies. Therefore the models explored and proposed in the research would require more improvement when, at some point in the future, more precise data will be available from international comparable sources;
• WP3 key findings: The WP identified increased influence of managerialism in social work practice in all countries explored. The purpose of mapping the profession across six countries was not to draw comparisons as the varying contexts within which the profession operates in each country are each unique, making comparison both superficial and inadequate. Rather it was to identify common issues and challenges which may lead to collective knowledge building and learning. In each of the six countries in spite of being a graduate profession, social work is not highly paid (below the national average in each of the countries); it is a stressful job; and the role is not fully valued for the contribution it makes; but in order to address these issues a much wider debate needs to ensue about the purpose and the profession of social work. The data collected within this work package contributes to this debate. In particular, there are four fundamental challenges which are common to social work in all six countries:
o Does social work need a stronger professional identity to provide a robust and effective service?
o Should social work be a universal service or a targeted service to those in greatest need?
o Is social work able to meet the demands of social need in a globalised world?
o Does social work require a model of management?
Each of these issues has emerged from the impact of neoliberal management on social work. While there may be some positive aspects of moves towards greater accountability and efficiency as a result of this economic approach, it also appears to be leading to a non-professional delineation of the social work role. In any service which is funded by public money there is always a difficult balance to be struck between need and resources and the voice of the professional is key to influencing the strategic approach to achieve that balance. In each of the six countries the professional voice is either still emerging or is being muzzled amidst a worrying picture of increasing unmet social need.
• WP4 key findings: concepts of vulnerability and wellbeing are highly complex and multi-level in nature; vulnerability is defined in many different ways and fields and is a difficult concept to understand and define internationally. There is a need to broaden the current international models used to define vulnerability/risk/protection, as they are too simplistic, not sufficient to consider context and subjectivity; risk and protection are interacting factors of which welfare, social policy and social work effect both aspects; social worker’s need to have an increased understanding of vulnerability/risk/protection and how this interacts with for instance citizenship, protection policies, welfare, social work.
• WP5 key findings: Rather than rigid procedures and “best practices” to be uncritically copied in a different contexts, collective reflective questions to be discussed in the global professional communities of social workers seems the best way to deal with the complexity raised by all the implications of neoliberal policy and management in social work and vulnerable population today
It was highlighted that within the professional context of social work there appears to currently be no political will for evaluation outside of an economic framework: the measurement of social impact is only deemed valid when monetary value is assigned to social outcomes. Evaluation systems which are set within an economic framework are at best estimates of impact and assume a cause and effect relationship between intervention and outcome which cannot be proven. The project felt that of the approaches developed to date, the Subjective Well-Being model most closely evaluates outcomes appropriate to social work i.e. the impact of interventions aimed at satisfying need. However, there is a clash between social outcomes resulting from neoliberal thinking and those resulting from interventions based on the theoretical knowledge of social work. Social workers in countries adopting a neoliberal approach therefore find their professional practice and their potential effectiveness compromised.
Challenges: As with many large projects there were a number of challenges, but the involvement of the team in seeking collective solutions provided useful learning and development opportunities. For example, the types of challenge experienced included the coordination of the work package teams; limitations in terms of travel time and availability; limited involvement from some countries; the availability, use and development of English-based literature; the scope of the work package tasks; and the development of appropriate theoretical models and frameworks for evaluation.
The following key findings can be highlighted from the research:
• Growth in neoliberalism and neoliberal tenets on a global scale and within social work, social services and welfare policy. This is articulated, experienced and implemented differently in respective countries. The analysis, experience and response of the profession are varied, but in all contexts is poorly theorised and articulated;
• In recent decades, neoliberal reforms, processes of retrenchment and privatization of welfare services have impacted on the relationships and distribution of responsibilities between states, markets, families and communities for the provision of care and access to material support in many countries of the world;
• Broad decrease or rebadging of welfare and government spending in social work; although there are elements of this in every participating country, it is to varying degrees;
• There has been a growth in social work resistance and critical discourse but this is not yet coherently and consistently articulated;
• Professional and international definition of the role of social work is changing – individual to collective, micro to macro, increasing demand for academic training and understanding – this is in contrast to the role of social work in actual practice – increasingly managerial and/or client-focused – also in direct contrast to neoliberal ideals of individualism and individual responsibility;
• WP1 key findings: vulnerability, citizenship and risk/protection are strongly interconnected and also changing over time; vulnerability is socially constructed and largely affected by context, cultural understandings; citizenship and universal rights changing and developing;
• WP2 key findings: The most popular models (Esping-Andersen, Ferrera, etc.) used for comparing social policies across different countries are appropriate for describing the situation in Europe, USA and a few other geographical areas that may be considered culturally close, but their capability to go beyond and cover other regions of the world appears very limited. Information available in the international databases are often not uniform and this makes it difficult to compare different systems of social welfare policies. Therefore the models explored and proposed in the research would require more improvement when, at some point in the future, more precise data will be available from international comparable sources;
• WP3 key findings: The WP identified increased influence of managerialism in social work practice in all countries explored. The purpose of mapping the profession across six countries was not to draw comparisons as the varying contexts within which the profession operates in each country are each unique, making comparison both superficial and inadequate. Rather it was to identify common issues and challenges which may lead to collective knowledge building and learning. In each of the six countries in spite of being a graduate profession, social work is not highly paid (below the national average in each of the countries); it is a stressful job; and the role is not fully valued for the contribution it makes; but in order to address these issues a much wider debate needs to ensue about the purpose and the profession of social work. The data collected within this work package contributes to this debate. In particular, there are four fundamental challenges which are common to social work in all six countries:
o Does social work need a stronger professional identity to provide a robust and effective service?
o Should social work be a universal service or a targeted service to those in greatest need?
o Is social work able to meet the demands of social need in a globalised world?
o Does social work require a model of management?
Each of these issues has emerged from the impact of neoliberal management on social work. While there may be some positive aspects of moves towards greater accountability and efficiency as a result of this economic approach, it also appears to be leading to a non-professional delineation of the social work role. In any service which is funded by public money there is always a difficult balance to be struck between need and resources and the voice of the professional is key to influencing the strategic approach to achieve that balance. In each of the six countries the professional voice is either still emerging or is being muzzled amidst a worrying picture of increasing unmet social need.
• WP4 key findings: concepts of vulnerability and wellbeing are highly complex and multi-level in nature; vulnerability is defined in many different ways and fields and is a difficult concept to understand and define internationally. There is a need to broaden the current international models used to define vulnerability/risk/protection, as they are too simplistic, not sufficient to consider context and subjectivity; risk and protection are interacting factors of which welfare, social policy and social work effect both aspects; social worker’s need to have an increased understanding of vulnerability/risk/protection and how this interacts with for instance citizenship, protection policies, welfare, social work.
• WP5 key findings: Rather than rigid procedures and “best practices” to be uncritically copied in a different contexts, collective reflective questions to be discussed in the global professional communities of social workers seems the best way to deal with the complexity raised by all the implications of neoliberal policy and management in social work and vulnerable population today
It was highlighted that within the professional context of social work there appears to currently be no political will for evaluation outside of an economic framework: the measurement of social impact is only deemed valid when monetary value is assigned to social outcomes. Evaluation systems which are set within an economic framework are at best estimates of impact and assume a cause and effect relationship between intervention and outcome which cannot be proven. The project felt that of the approaches developed to date, the Subjective Well-Being model most closely evaluates outcomes appropriate to social work i.e. the impact of interventions aimed at satisfying need. However, there is a clash between social outcomes resulting from neoliberal thinking and those resulting from interventions based on the theoretical knowledge of social work. Social workers in countries adopting a neoliberal approach therefore find their professional practice and their potential effectiveness compromised.
Challenges: As with many large projects there were a number of challenges, but the involvement of the team in seeking collective solutions provided useful learning and development opportunities. For example, the types of challenge experienced included the coordination of the work package teams; limitations in terms of travel time and availability; limited involvement from some countries; the availability, use and development of English-based literature; the scope of the work package tasks; and the development of appropriate theoretical models and frameworks for evaluation.