Book Review: Social Policy, Social Welfare and Scandal How British Public Policy is Made
| Date | 01 September 2004 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13619322200400033 |
| Pages | 43-44 |
| Published date | 01 September 2004 |
| Author | William Utting |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
The Mental Health Review Volume 9 Issue 3 September 2004 ©Pavilion Publishing (Brighton) 2004 43
Book review
Social Policy, Social Welfare and Scandal
How British Public Policy is Made
Ian Butler and Mark Drakeford
London: Palgrave Macmillan
utler and Drakeford present a
convincing account of the peculiar significance of
public scandal in this well-written and clearly
constructed volume. Potentially scandalous situations
may persist in welfare systems for decades while they
are protected by a collusive consensus. A particular
mix of ingredients is then suddenly exposed to the
gaze of a horrified public by concerned and
exploitative media. Formal inquiry follows,
protestations are made that ‘this must never happen
again’; remedial action is promised by government and
statutory authorities – and some actually undertaken.
The authors identify characteristic events as the
substance of scandal, typically the abuse of children or
adults by those charged with their care and protection.
These touch deep springs in the stuff of fairy tales and
archetypal myth. There is a hierarchy of public
concern, with personal interests (‘That might be me –
or my mum’) and the ‘innocence’ of sufferers at its
head. Matters do not reach the public, however,
without the advocacy of committed individuals or
groups and the intervention of the media. People like
Barbara Robb of AEGIS (Aid for Elderly in
Government Institutions) and Mr Pantelides, the
whistleblower at Ely Hospital, incurred the enmity of
vested institutional, professional and union interests.
Selfless journalists pursued stories while their editors
ground political axes and sensationalised the agenda.
The final element is an environment of policy and
practice that is ripening for change: reaction against
the mental handicap and psychiatric hospitals at one
point; at another disenchantment with the poorly
resourced and implemented policies of community
care.
The book is particularly strong on the nature of
formal inquiry into such events. The ‘truth’ remains
elusive. The narratives supplied by inquiries are
themselves social constructs, testimony filtered by the
Bage, gender, social class, ethnicity and professional
orientation of the inquirer. Readers then apply their
own personal interpretation. Some inquiries are held
in public, some in private with a published report.
Many are adversarial in nature, the need for
representation of the interests at stake playing into a
culture dominated by legalistic traditions. We have so
many inquiries because welfare institutions lack
credible systems for investigating themselves: inter-
disciplinary issues present particular problems. Some
inquiry reports are good, some bad. Some stimulate
change, others merely repeat the unachievable
aspirations of their predecessors. None achieves major
change, however, without mobilising wide political
support and being championed by big political players.
The constraints of a single volume compel the
authors to select both the fields covered and the
examples given. They do this without risking their
objectivity. Events are placed in their historical
context and illuminated by thorough analysis.
Conclusions are well argued and the book is a
balanced account of how events helped to shape
policy. It can be recommended to all with
responsibilities in the field of social welfare. Some of
us engaged with these issues at the time might
occasionally dispute points of interpretation, or wince
at the salutary reminders of cherished beliefs crashing
about our ears. The authors do not contend, of course,
that only public scandal fires change in welfare policy.
There are cases elsewhere of rationally based reform
and of the tenacity and good luck of a backbencher
(Alf Morris) in making a breakthrough with the
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act of 1970.
But scandal produces a temporary climate of opinion
in which politicians, professionals and other interest
groups can force change through, or have it forced
upon them. The pity is that the ephemeral nature of
some scandals allows at best a premature and possibly
inappropriate response, while the repetition of others
produces a fatigue that declines into acceptance.
To continue reading
Request your trial