Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Critical Social Policy
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Allen, C.
Right arrow Articles by Sprigings, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Housing policy, housing management and tenant power in the ‘risk society’: some critical observations on the welfare politics of ‘radical doubt’

Chris Allen

University of Bradford

Nigel Sprigings

University of Salford

This article is a direct response to Culpitt (1999: 10), who has recently argued that ‘concepts of risk, particularly of Beck's thesis of risk society and the various meanings associated with it, have not been explored fully in relation to social policy’. We make applied usage of the work of Beck and other key risk society theorists to make sense of the changing nature of housing policy and management issues in late modernity. We also use these empirical observations of housing policy and management developments in the post-welfare society to critically reflect on (and thus develop) the risk society thesis, which we argue is a theory of postindustrial society and therefore partial and incomplete. In doing so, we take issue with Beck's and with Giddens's over-generalized notion that late modern societies are characterized by a ‘post-scarcity’ (e.g., ecological) risk politics that has moved ‘beyond left and right’. Using empirical evidence from the post-welfare society, we argue that the risk society further embeds and exacerbates—rather than transcends—the forms of (primarily economic) inequality found in industrial societies.

Key Words: inequality • information society • late modernity • reflexivity • subpolitics

Critical Social Policy, Vol. 21, No. 3, 384-412 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/026101830102100306


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Critical Social PolicyHome page
C. McDonald, G. Marston, and A. Buckley
Risk Technology in Australia: The Role of the Job Seeker Classification Instrument in Employment Services
Critical Social Policy, November 1, 2003; 23(4): 498 - 525.
[Abstract] [PDF]