They come and go… and come back: Theoretical concepts in social policy research, and why they matter

Social policy research, much as the wider discipline of social sciences, is characterised by the ebb and flow of theoretical concepts, which fluctuate in popularity, can disappear and later reappear (perhaps in slightly different shape), or emerge as fresh new ways of reflecting upon and making sense of our complex social world.

Whether it is old classics such as ‘poverty’ and ‘inequality’, or more recent manifestations such as ‘social exclusion’ or ‘vulnerability’, two features appear to be universal: On the one hand, there is usually a tension, if not outright conflict, between academic conceptualisations and the way in which political activists or policy-makers use such terms. On the other, there can be lively debates within the research community itself as to which concepts (and which interpretation of any given concept) are the most appropriate and useful to analyse social phenomena.

When I was working on my PhD a few years ago, investigating social policies against exclusion, I was often struck by the extent to which theoretical work that I considered to be deeply insightful and intelligent was simplified, distorted and twisted by politicians, leaving behind little more than some empty shells of rhetoric. At the same time, it was fascinating to observe that controversies were running high within academic circles, to discuss the merits and demerits of ‘social exclusion’ as a theoretical concept. 

Having had the fortune of reading my fair share of Pierre Bourdieu during my own studies, this was of course not surprising, given that the academic world represents one of the ‘fields’ he had written about, with their struggles for symbolic capital and reputation as well as the need to be both on the inside, by playing according to the rules, and to find one’s own niche. In more recent times, ongoing research on vulnerability, together with my colleague Kevin Caraher, has led to similar observations…

These controversies, be it within academia or in the wider realm of politics are, however, not only inevitable in an open society, but also highly beneficial. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is these debates that help to push forward the boundaries of knowledge and that challenge us intellectually – and hence lead ideally to progress. 

And they also help to engage critically with policy-making by, for example, highlighting the shortcomings or biases of social policy programmes, and by being able to understand which approaches could work better. Moreover, such controversial discussions sharpen the tools for critical reflection – something essential in any democratic society to avoid the dullness and narrow-mindedness of a ‘there is no alternative consensus’ and to foster lively debates and peaceful ways of expressing conflicting views.

Finally, it is these ‘controversies’ as well as keeping an open mind, accepting and contrasting different views, and never stopping learning what makes academic work so enriching, for teachers and students alike.

This year, to celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the Department of Social Policy and Social Work, we offer two bursaries for students on our new MA in Social and Public Policy.

Enrico Reuter – follow me on Twitter: @ReuterEnrico

Four frameworks to understand public service reform – a proposal

Public services tend to be seen as guarantors of well-being. Whether we think of education, healthcare or essential local services, it is generally agreed that public services, funded by taxation and available to people regardless of their ability to directly pay, play a role in protecting certain minimum standards. As soon as we move however beyond these basic assumptions, debates around public services become more antagonistic, with competing arguments regarding the most efficient use of public funds, the most effective modes of delivery and the main priorities of service provision. It is thus not surprising that reform plans for public services are subject to controversial and often contradictory claims as to what should be done, can be done and why.

It is one of the tasks of social scientists to reveal what lies behind such arguments and to hence analyse the material and ideological drivers behind social transformations or policy change. To do this well, it makes sense to rely on an effective combination of empirical research and theorising, with the latter being essential to reduce the complexity of social reality and to create frameworks, models and categories that help to foster a critical understanding of the social world surrounding us.

Based on empirical research of public service reforms and having taught this topic for several years, I would argue that we can identify four distinct ideational frameworks, which represent a coherent set of beliefs guiding public service reform. In this blog post, I would like to briefly introduce these four and invite any comments, either publicly or via email:

The social-holistic framework sees public services as deeply interwoven with the integrative fabric of a society, as institutions that tie social groups, individuals and communities together by establishing bonds of collectively organised mutual support and interdependence. The importance of public services goes beyond the practical, as they represent one major expression of how a society chooses to be organised along the lines of democratic inclusiveness as well as inter-generational and inter-personal solidarity. Public services are, from this perspective and in the words of Castel and Haroche (2001), a form of social property accessible to all citizens and residents.

The political-selective framework is equally embedded in material social relations, but it is less universal and comprehensive than the previous framework, as it focuses on the conflictual interplays between social groups. The shape and generosity of public services as well as the priorities of service delivery are determined by the ability of social groups and classes to influence the policy process and to make demands for service provision.

The economic-functionalist framework defines public services negatively, as a response to perceived gaps and distortions in the functioning of markets. Wherever market failures occur, a space for legitimate government intervention opens up to address said market failures, but the scope of public services remains generally restricted to those realms where market-based approaches, according to the theoretical premises of this perspective, appear as insufficient.

The moral-residual framework takes this thinking further, by stipulating that public services ought to provide nothing more than a minimum safety net for the poorest members of society, in other words for those who do not possess the economic or social capital to protect themselves, for example by purchasing private education or health insurance. It could be argued that this framework represents a sub-set of the economic-functionalist framework, if it weren’t for one substantial difference: Similar to means-tested benefits, users of these residual public services can potentially be subjected to a moralising discourse that defines any reliance on the minimum safety net as a sign of personal failure.

These four frameworks obviously need to be fine-tuned by further empirical research in order to create proper ideal-types, but I think they can serve well as a starting point for analyses that seek to identify how advocates of public service reform, be it political parties, think tanks or NGOs, conceptualise and act upon public services.

In this way, we can gain a deeper understanding of the underpinning ideas and interests that drive policy change in this particular field. Moreover, it becomes easier to identify broader trends in public service reform and to situate specific case studies within these trends, going beyond categories such as ‘choice and competition’ that are frequently used by observers and policy-makers to describe reform processes. And finally, frameworks like these, or adjusted versions of them, should enable us to shine a brighter spotlight on the intellectual premises that underpin debates about public services. It seems to me this critical engagement is crucial in times when the neoliberal and managerial paradigms of the past, despite their obvious flaws and failures, continue to restrict policy debates.

Enrico Reuter - follow me on Twitter

Castel, R. and Haroche, C. (2001). Propriété privée, propriété sociale, propriété de soi. Paris: Librairie Artème Fayard.

A rare case of policy success? How Kenya’s nutrition sector is on course to meet global targets

During my first term at the University of York one of the issues we discussed during weekly online discussions with students from around the globe was policy failure. It was interesting how frequent it seemed that public systems didn’t live up to citizens’ expectations, no matter which part of the world we were writing from. Policy success appeared as rather elusive.

It therefore is a pleasant surprise to sing to a slightly different tune and consider a more positive trend with regards to the nutrition sector of Kenya’s Ministry of Health. In 2012, the World Health Organisation (WHO) developed a set of 6 targets that were deemed by member states as essential to comprehensively address the main nutrition concerns to be attained by 2025. Through the annual tracking of these targets, the 2015 Global nutrition report showed Kenya as the only country on track to meet all six targets. So, what can explain this positive trend in Kenya’s nutrition sector, what could we learn from it about public policy success?

Before delving into this, it is important to highlight just how complex nutrition issues can be. Malnutrition may appear simply as a food deficit and should hence easily be resolved by providing enough food to the people who lack it, when they need it. But nutrition issues are far more complex than that:

Primarily, nutrition is an outcome, not just of the food ingested, but of how the body handles it – meaning a person with illness, for example a child with diarrhoea, is likely to have a poorer nutrition status compared to a child without, even with equal food intake. Secondarily, complex dynamics affect when and how a child is fed and cared for, such as: the mother’s access to information and education; access to health services; hygiene and sanitation practices and food availability. On a tertiary level these outcomes are again affected by broader state issues: how does the culture perceive a woman’s education – is it encouraged? Does a government prioritise healthcare and facilitate optimal coverage of health services? What about policies that support livelihoods and enable communities to absorb shocks from volatile markets? And of course, there is the issue of political stability.

These factors affect the nutrition situation in complex ways, and to varying degrees. The challenge of sound nutrition policy is being able to address these diverse complex issues appropriately, and all the while in a rapidly changing environment. The interventions required to relevantly address nutrition problems require an understanding of the broader issues’ contribution to nutrition so that these issues are addressed from the three levels previously expounded, and not just at outcome level.

While many little things built up to contribute to the nutrition sector’s success, the overarching one could be strategic positioning. From 2010-2012, the Kenyan government’s nutrition sector together with nutrition-focused UN bodies and non-governmental organisations aligned all nutrition actions and strategies within one global strategy called the scaling up nutrition movement. This led to well-coordinated actions and a harmonised approach that influenced a compelling vision for change. With all actors speaking with one voice, the experience, capacity and opportunities of agencies were amplified.

The sector then sought to address the legal and policy arenas that would provide institutional legitimacy to bring on board influential actors. For example an article on the right to basic nutrition was enshrined in Kenya’s constitution. The sector also developed two guiding policies: a budgeted national nutrition action plan under control of the Ministry of Health that expounded 11 strategic objectives to be adopted and contextualised to devolved counties; and the Kenya Food and Nutrition Security Policy that was developed as a platform to engage ministries that are complementary to nutrition such as education, agriculture and food industries. These two policies are deemed to direct and streamline actions from allied agencies by highlighting government priorities.

This streamlining of actions meant two things: First, at the organisational level, agencies executing a nutrition mandate (local or international) adopted government priorities for nutrition as their priorities. Thus, an agency’s implementation plan was not guided by its resources and the organisation’s priorities but in line with the government’s priorities. Secondly, at implementation level, this reduced the redundant duplication of actors’ efforts as roles were clarified and mapped in line with the harmonised policy. Coupled with a cohesive coordination mechanism, agencies and actors regularly appraised their actions, processes and outcomes against the common sector plan, to adjust off-course actions and reinforce the on-course ones. This gradually led to the identification of actions that were appropriate for a scale-up of nutrition services with the government taking lead in the execution of the services.

So what’s next for Kenya’s nutrition sector? For one, a cautious approach to the successes gained is necessary. The sector needs to appraise the meaning of the gains by looking a little deeper. For instance, while the 2015 Global Nutrition Report revealed no increase in childhood overweight, unfortunately the same report revealed an increase in adult overweight in Kenya. There is also need for increased nuance in linking the underlying causal issues that impact nutrition outcomes, i.e. to elaborate exactly how these issues actually contribute to change. One simple example is how an increase in a woman’s workload negatively impacts on her ability to offer improved care to her child, including having an impact on the time available to feed her child (Hailey, 2015). Such nuance could rally the different sectors that engage women to do so by taking into consideration the impact of empowerment opportunities on the amount of time she spends with her child.

In summary, Kenya has made great strides in combating malnutrition based on the six global priorities. It greatly owes this first to a growing understanding of the complex issues that contribute to malnutrition and then aligning and streamlining policies, and actions, to this understanding. While this is definitely worth celebrating, maintaining a little caution and assessing more thoroughly the meaning of these successes would enable the sector to consolidate the gains made and to build on them, thus, to address the nutrition challenge not just holistically but also sustainably.

Lillian Karanja

Hailey, P. (2015). Theory of Change Framework Nutrition Resilience. Centre For Humanitarian Change.