Welfare Lobby Groups responding to Globalisation: A Comparison of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the UK Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG)
The past decade has witnessed a period of intense economic globalisation. The growing significance of international trade, investment, production and financial flows appears to be curtailing the autonomy of individual nation states. In particular, globalisation appears to be encouraging, if not...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Social Work & Society
2004-01-01
|
| Series: | Social Work and Society |
| Online Access: | http://132.195.130.183/index.php/sws/article/view/1157 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849417052830302208 |
|---|---|
| author | Philip Mendes |
| author_facet | Philip Mendes |
| author_sort | Philip Mendes |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The past decade has witnessed a period of intense economic globalisation. The growing significance of international trade, investment, production and financial flows appears to be curtailing the autonomy of individual nation states. In particular, globalisation appears to be encouraging, if not demanding, a decline in social spending and standards. However, many authors believe that this thesis ignores the continued impact of national political and ideological pressures and lobby groups on policy outcomes. In particular, it has been argued that national welfare consumer and provider groups remain influential defenders of the welfare state. For example, US aged care groups are considered to be particularly effective defenders of social security pensions. According to this argument, governments engaged in welfare retrenchment may experience considerable electoral backlash (Pierson 1996; Mishra 1999). Yet, it is also noted that governments can take action to reduce the impact of such groups by reducing their funding, and their access to policy-making and consultation processes. These actions are then justified on the basis of removing potential obstacles to economic competitiveness (Pierson 1994; Melville 1999). |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a1ccc7746e6b40b495019cd4c7b989e2 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1613-8953 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2004-01-01 |
| publisher | Social Work & Society |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Social Work and Society |
| spelling | doaj-art-a1ccc7746e6b40b495019cd4c7b989e22025-08-20T03:32:57ZengSocial Work & SocietySocial Work and Society1613-89532004-01-0121Welfare Lobby Groups responding to Globalisation: A Comparison of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the UK Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG)Philip MendesThe past decade has witnessed a period of intense economic globalisation. The growing significance of international trade, investment, production and financial flows appears to be curtailing the autonomy of individual nation states. In particular, globalisation appears to be encouraging, if not demanding, a decline in social spending and standards. However, many authors believe that this thesis ignores the continued impact of national political and ideological pressures and lobby groups on policy outcomes. In particular, it has been argued that national welfare consumer and provider groups remain influential defenders of the welfare state. For example, US aged care groups are considered to be particularly effective defenders of social security pensions. According to this argument, governments engaged in welfare retrenchment may experience considerable electoral backlash (Pierson 1996; Mishra 1999). Yet, it is also noted that governments can take action to reduce the impact of such groups by reducing their funding, and their access to policy-making and consultation processes. These actions are then justified on the basis of removing potential obstacles to economic competitiveness (Pierson 1994; Melville 1999).http://132.195.130.183/index.php/sws/article/view/1157 |
| spellingShingle | Philip Mendes Welfare Lobby Groups responding to Globalisation: A Comparison of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the UK Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) Social Work and Society |
| title | Welfare Lobby Groups responding to Globalisation: A Comparison of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the UK Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) |
| title_full | Welfare Lobby Groups responding to Globalisation: A Comparison of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the UK Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) |
| title_fullStr | Welfare Lobby Groups responding to Globalisation: A Comparison of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the UK Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) |
| title_full_unstemmed | Welfare Lobby Groups responding to Globalisation: A Comparison of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the UK Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) |
| title_short | Welfare Lobby Groups responding to Globalisation: A Comparison of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the UK Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) |
| title_sort | welfare lobby groups responding to globalisation a comparison of the australian council of social service acoss and the uk child poverty action group cpag |
| url | http://132.195.130.183/index.php/sws/article/view/1157 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT philipmendes welfarelobbygroupsrespondingtoglobalisationacomparisonoftheaustraliancouncilofsocialserviceacossandtheukchildpovertyactiongroupcpag |