there has always been
some expectation that benefit claimants will work, hence the principle of social insurance. The distinction has become popular to disguise the fact that what is now called active welfare is little more than
a synonym for workfare policies that often coerce and punish the
victim. Economic efficacy is now supposedly gained by reforming the
worker rather than reforming the market.
The idea that the Old Left ignored the importance of duties is another
caricature (Deacon, 2000: 15). In fact, the NSD merely updates the
principle of ‘less eligibility
substantial continuities between the nineteenth-century
minimalist state and the post-Victorian ‘penal–welfare’ state. He underlines the extent to which eugenics inspired the modern system of social
security, so that the latter is the institutional embodiment of the genetic
endowments we are assumed to possess. According to this interpretation,
social policy prods the genetically unfit into labour colonies, workfare and
social assistance schemes (King, 1999) and designs labour exchanges and
social insurance systems for the genetically fit.
Taken individually, none of the
asserting that ‘the fact of the matter is, people hold other people responsible’ (see
Matravers 2002: 569). His claims about individual responsibility and choice are
not grounded on any factual account of determinism or free will, but represent
his own (and apparently our) views about prudence and moral autonomy, and
the apparently self-evident (but in fact highly controversial) boundaries of the
self. Richard Arneson attempts to justify his workfare schemes on the basis of
choice, but our actual choices are substituted by the choices we should make,
and what we are
leading Conservatives were again prepared to look across the Atlantic.
Iain Duncan Smith visited the US in early December 2001. His engagements
included a meeting with George Pataki, governor of New York state. On his
return, Duncan Smith commended Pataki’s efforts in reforming welfare provision
through workfare whereby recipients work in return for public assistance. He
also paid tribute to the Republican Party’s presidential campaign:
Yet Bush turned the Clinton–Blair tide and a center right renaissance now
crackles through the autumnal air in Washington. He did it by
forms of uneven development’, European
Urban and Regional Studies, 10:1, 49–67.
Jessop, B. (2004), Towards a Schumpetarian Workfare State? Preliminary Remarks on Post-Fordist
Political Economy (Lancaster: University of Lancaster, originally 1993).
Jessop, B. (2013), ‘Revisiting the regulation approach: Critical reflections on the contradictions, dilemmas, fixes and crisis dynamics of growth regimes’, Capital and Class,
Kristensen, P. H., and Rocha, R. S. (2012), ‘New roles for the trade unions five lines of
action for carving out a new governance regime
) ‘From the Keynesian welfare to the Schumpeterian workfare state’,
Lancaster Regionalism Group, Working Paper 45, University of Lancaster.
Kölbe, T. (1987) ‘Trade unionists, party activists and politicians: the struggle
for power over party rules in the Labour Party and the West German SPD’,
Comparative Politics, 19 (4).
Lafontaine, O. and Schröder, G. (1998) (eds), Innovation für Deutschland (Göttingen:
Lafontaine, O. (1998) untitled contribution in O. Lafontaine and G. Schröder (eds),
Innovation für Deutschland (Göttingen: Steidl).
Lees, C. (2000) The Red
signed off on Partnership 2000 in 1996 – an agreement that included a number
of INOU demands geared to supporting and facilitating unemployed people,
fending off ‘workfare’ and improving social welfare. Obviously, the more that
unemployment improved, the less salience would be attached to the INOU.
Thus, the reversal of unemployment and emergence of labour shortages seems
a more convincing reason for the declining public profile and critical voice of
The CWC showed little evidence of being incorporated, though its early
successes arose from proactive
Recently, a number of French sociologists have provided a refreshing and
sharp critique of neoliberal politics in terms of political economy. Perhaps
the most famous is Loïc Wacquant’s critical analysis of the neoliberal state
(Wacquant, 2009, 2010). Taking his point of departure in the tendency of
going tough on crime in many OECD countries since the 1990s, Wacquant
argues that neoliberalism is not only about market rule but also about
supervisory workfare, a proactive penal state and the generalised elevation of an ethos of individual responsibility (for
local union membership and organisation. In a similar vein,
recent research in the UK has found that the imposition of
local workfare regimes in traditional Labour-run local authorities tend to be more favourable to the participation of trade
unions and voluntary sector organisations in policy design
and delivery than elsewhere, where business interests are
more dominant (Sunley et al., 2005).
The politics of scale
Political power is unevenly articulated across national space
and geographic scale, and social movements mostly operate
at the intersection of a series of
neoliberal or, possibly, as envisaged
in certain contexts through a ‘Third Way’ politics, a Workfare state (Ball,
2007), to create the right infrastructure for investment and mobility;
• vocationalising many sectors of lifelong learning, including education for
older adults (non-sustainability of pension schemes) (Borg and Mayo, 2008);
• public financing of private needs (Gentili, 2001; Borg and Mayo, 2006)
through, in certain cases, partly financing, directly or indirectly, a competitor HE market (Gentili, 2005, p. 143) or facilitating the presence of a