As a contemporary development in welfare policy, contractualism stipulates discretionary rights and obligations for each client, some of whom are quite vulnerable. The contractual design promotes empowerment, but entails sanctions for non-compliance. This article investigates how rationales of empowerment and discipline shape social work practice and uses a Foucauldian governmentality perspective to investigate interrelations between political objectives and individual practices. Two contrasting cases are used to explicate how rationales of empowerment and discipline simultaneously operate in social work within the contractual design.
Findings
With its emphasis on clients’ responsibility and empowerment, contractualism is a subtle yet efficient mode of governance, but disciplinary actions both rely on and undermine objectives of empowerment.
Applications
Social workers and clients must manoeuvre complexities as they exert empowering and disciplinary practices. These rationales of governance should be explicit and subject to professional and ethical considerations in the same way as other forms of professional authority directed at reliant, vulnerable clients.
BerthetT.BourgeoisC. (2014).
Towards ‘activation-friendly’ integration? Assessing the progress of activation policies in six European countries.International Journal of Social Welfare,
23, S23–S39. doi:10.1111/ijsw.12088
2.
BonoliG. (2010).
The political economy of active labor-market policy.Politics & Society,
38(4), 435–457. doi:10.1177/0032329210381235
3.
BonvinJ.-M. (2008).
Activation policies, new modes of governance and the issue of responsibility. Social Policy and Society,
7, 367–377. doi:10.1017/S1474746408004338
4.
CardD.KluveJ.WeberA. (2010).
Active labour market policy evaluations: A meta‐analysis.The Economic Journal,
120, F452–F477. doi:10.3386/w16173
5.
CheungJ. C.-S. (2016).
An exploration of social workers’ role in remunerative vocational training: Caring, controlling, or contractual?Qualitative Social Work,
15(2), 231–246. doi:10.1177/1473325015588122
6.
CordenJ.Preston-ShootM. (1987). Contracts in social work.
Aldershot, UK:
Gower Publishing Company Limited.
7.
CruikshankB. (1999). The will to empower democratic citizens and other subjects.
Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
8.
DeaconA. (2005). An ethic of mutual responsibility? Towards a fuller justification for conditionality in welfare. In MeadL. M.BeemC. (Eds), Welfare reform and political theory (pp. 127–150).
New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
9.
DeanM. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.).
London, UK:
Sage Publications.
10.
DeanM. (2014).
Rethinking neoliberalism.Journal of Sociology,
50(2), 150–163. doi:10.1177/1440783312442256
11.
DeanM.HindessB. (Eds) (1998). Governing Australia: Studies in contemporary rationalities of government.
Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Diop-ChristensenA. (2015).
Is ‘making work pay’ effective for the ‘unemployable’? The impact of benefit sanctions on social assistance recipients in Denmark.Journal of European Social Policy,
25(2), 210–224. doi:10.1177/0958928715573484
14.
DunnoA. (2013).
Activation workers’ perceptions of their long-term unemployed clients’ attitudes towards employment.Journal of Social Policy,
42, 799–817. doi:10.1017/S0047279413000317
15.
ErvikR.KildalN.NilssenE. (2015). New contractualism in European welfare state policies.
Farnham, UK:
Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
16.
FernandesA. G. (2015).
(Dis)Empowering new immigrants and refugees through their participation in introduction programs in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway.Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies,
13(3), 245–264. doi:10.1080/15562948.2015.1045054
17.
FletcherD. R. (2011).
Welfare reform, Jobcentre plus and the street-level bureaucracy: Towards inconsistent and discriminatory welfare for severely disadvantaged groups?Social Policy and Society,
10, 445–458. doi:10.1017/S1474746411000200
18.
FoucaultM. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison.
London, UK:
Vintage.
19.
FoucaultM. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction (Vol. 1).
New York, NY:
Vintage Books, Random House, Inc.
20.
FoucaultM. (2000). Governmentality. In FaubionJ. (Ed.), Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 (Vol. 3), pp. 201–222).
London, UK:
Penguin Books.
21.
FoucaultM.FaubionJ. D. (2002). Power (3rd ed.).
London, UK:
Penguin Books.
22.
FoucaultM.RabinowP. (1997). The essential works of Michel Foucault, 1954–1984.
London, UK:
Allen Lane.
23.
FoucaultM.SenellartM.EwaldF.FontanaA. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the College de France, 1977–1978.
Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
FreedlandM.KingD. (2003).
Contractual governance and illiberal contracts: Some problems of contractualism as an instrument of behaviour management by agencies of government.Cambridge Journal of Economics,
27, 465–477. doi:10.1093/cje/27.3.465
25.
GiddensA. (2013). The third way and its critics.
West Sussex, UK:
John Wiley & Sons.
26.
GilbertT.PowellJ. L. (2010).
Power and social work in the United Kingdom: A Foucauldian excursion.Journal of Social Work,
10(1), 3–22. doi:10.1177/1468017309347237
27.
GordonC.MillerP.BurchellG.FoucaultM. (1991). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality.
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
28.
HandlerJ. F. (2005).
Myth and ceremony in workfare: Rights, contracts, and client satisfaction.Journal of Socio-Economics,
34, 101–124. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.056
29.
HjörneE.JuhilaK.Van NijnattenC. (2010).
Negotiating dilemmas in the practices of street‐level welfare work.International Journal of Social Welfare,
19, 303–309. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2010.00721
30.
HyslopI. (2012).
Social work as a practice of freedom.Journal of Social Work,
12(4), 404–422. doi:10.1177/1468017310388362
JessenJ. T.TufteP. A. (2014).
Discretionary decision-making in a changing context of activation policies and welfare reforms.Journal of Social Policy,
43, 269–288. doi:10.1017/S0047279413000998
33.
JørgensenH. (2009).
From a beautiful swan to an ugly duckling: The renewal of Danish activation policy since 2003.European Journal of Social Security,
11(4), 337–368. doi:10.1177/138826270901100401
34.
KarlsenM. P.VilladsenK. (2008).
Who should do the talking? The proliferation of dialogue as governmental technology.Culture and Organization,
14(4), 345–363. doi:10.1080/14759550802489680
35.
LemkeT. (2001). ‘
The birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the College de France.Economy and Society,
30(2), 190–207. doi:10.1080/03085140120042271
36.
LiljegrenA. (2012).
Pragmatic professionalism: Micro-level discourse in social work.European Journal of Social Work,
15, 295–312. doi:10.1080/13691457.2010.543888
37.
Malmberg-HeimonenI. E. (2015).
Social workers’ training evaluated by a cluster-randomized study: Reemployment for welfare recipients?Research on Social Work Practice25(6), 643–653. doi:10.1177/1049731515569357
38.
MeadL. (1986). Beyond entitlement: The social obligations of citizenship.
New York, NY:
The Free Press.
39.
MeeuwisseA.ScaramuzzinoR.SwärdH. (2011).
Everyday realities and visionary ideals among social workers in the Nordic countries: A matter of specialization and work tasks?Nordic Social Work Research,
1(1), 5–23. doi:10.1080/2156857X.2011.562030
40.
NatlandS.CelikH. D. (2015). Service users’ self-narratives on their journey from shame to pride: Tales of transition. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 12(1), 50–63. doi: 10.1080/15433714.2014.954943
41.
NewmanJ.GlendinningC.HughesM. (2008).
Beyond modernisation? Social care and the transformation of welfare governance. Journal of Social Policy,
37(4), 531–557.
42.
OorschotW.AbrahamsonP. (2003).
The Dutch and Danish miracles revisited: A critical discussion of activation policies in two small welfare states.Social Policy & Administration,
37, 288–304.
43.
RaeymaeckersP.DierckxD. (2013).
To work or not to work? The role of the organisational context for social workers’ perceptions on activation.British Journal of Social Work,
43(6), 1170–1189. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcs048
44.
RoseN.MillerP. (1992).
Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government.The British Journal of Sociology,
43(2), 173–205. doi:10.2307/591464
45.
RoseN.O’MalleyP.ValverdeM. (2006).
Governmentality.Annual Review of Law and Social Science,
2, 83–104. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105900
46.
RøysumA. (2012).
The reform of the welfare services in Norway: One office – One way of thinking?European Journal of Social Work,
16, 708–723. doi:10.1080/13691457.2012.722982
47.
The Social Welfare Act (2009). Act on Social Services in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (§ 2009-12-18-131) [Lov om sosiale tjenester i arbeids- og velferdsforvaltningen - (sosialtjenesteloven) (§ 2009-12-18-131)]. Retrieved from: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2009-12-18-131
48.
ToerienM.SainsburyR.DrueP.IrvineA. (2013).
Putting personalisation into practice: Work-focused interviews in Jobcentre plus.Journal of Social Policy,
42, 309–327. doi:10.1017/S0047279412000980
49.
Van BerkelR.BorghiV.NewmanJ. (2007).
The ‘double dynamics’ of activation: Institutions, citizens and the remaking of welfare governance.International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,
27(9/10), 364–375. doi:10.1108/01443330710822066
50.
Van BerkelR.Van der AaP.Van GestelN. (2010).
Professionals without a profession? Redesigning case management in Dutch local welfare agencies.European Journal of Social Work,
13, 447–463. doi:10.1080/13691451003603455
51.
VilladsenK. (2007).
The emergence of ‘neo-philanthropy’: A new discursive space in welfare policy?Acta Sociologica,
50(3), 309–323.
52.
WhiteS. (2000).
Review article: Social rights and the social contract – Political theory and the new welfare.British Journal of Political Science,
30(3), 507–532.
53.
WhitworthA.CarterE. (2014).
Welfare-to-work reform, power and inequality: From governance to governmentalities.Journal of Contemporary European Studies,
22(2), 104–117. doi:10.1080/14782804.2014.907132
