Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

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
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
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 Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Scourfield, P.
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?

‘What matters is what works’? How discourses of modernization have both silenced and limited debate on domiciliary care for older people

Peter Scourfield

Anglia Ruskin University

Policy statements about the care of vulnerable older people repeatedly emphasize the desirability of keeping people at home. An enduring problem in implementing this strategy is the ongoing crisis within the quasi-market in domiciliary care. The government announced in 2004 that it wanted a new vision for adult social care. In such circumstances, it could be argued that, in order to achieve home care services that are stable, flexible and better placed to integrate more effectively with health agencies, local authorities should significantly expand in-house provision. Despite exhortations from ministers to think the unthinkable, such a proposal is actually ‘unsayable’. This article discusses how discourses of modernization exclude ideas that imply an expansion of directly provided social care. Such discourses have so much invested in the shedding of what it regards as outmoded ‘welfarist’ baggage, they are blind to proposals that could improve the lives of older, vulnerable citizens.

Key Words: modernizing social services • quasi-markets

Critical Social Policy, Vol. 26, No. 1, 5-30 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0261018306059764


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
Br J Soc WorkHome page
M. Carey
Everything Must Go? The Privatization of State Social Work
Br. J. Soc. Work, July 1, 2008; 38(5): 918 - 935.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
International Social WorkHome page
M. Carey
What difference does it make?: Contrasting organization and converging outcomes regarding the privatization of state social work in England and Canada
International Social Work, January 1, 2008; 51(1): 83 - 94.
[Abstract] [PDF]