Market, Management and Profession. Social Business in the Polder

In a recent policy document of the organized employers in the care and welfare sector in The Netherlands (the MO Group), directors and board members of care and welfare institutions present themselves as "social entrepreneurs", managing their institutions as look-a like commercial companies. They are hardly criticized and there is not any countervailing power of significance. The workers are focusing on their own specialized professional fields and divided as a whole. Many government officials are in favour or do not bother. The relatively small number of intellectual workers in Dutch care and welfare are fragmented and pragmatic. From a democratic point of view this is a worrying situation. From a professional point of view the purpose and functions of professional care and welfare work are at stake. The penetration of market mechanisms and the take-over by commercially orientated managers result from unquestioned adaptation of Anglo-Saxon policy in The Netherlands in the 1990's, following the crisis of the Welfare State in the late 1980's. The polder country is now confronted fully with the pressure and negative effects of unbalanced powers in the institutions, i.e. Managerialism. After years of silence, the two principal authentic critics of Dutch care and welfare, Harry Kunneman and Andries Baart, are no longer voices crying in the wilderness, but are getting a response from a growing number of worried workers and intellectuals. Kunneman and Baart warn against the restriction of professional space and the loss of normative values and standards in the profession. They are right. It is high time to make room for criticism and to start a debate about the future of the social professions in The Netherlands, better: in Europe. Research, discussion and action have to prove how worrying the everyday situation of professional workers is, what goals have to be set and what strategy to be chosen.

Defending Democratic Youth Work

The UK's liberal-cum-democratic welfare regime has led to a more developed state-sponsored youth work than in the majority of continental Europe, where a corporatist welfare regime has held sway (Esping Andersen 1990). To this extent British Youth Work has been more susceptible to governmental intervention. Nevertheless the ascendancy of neo-liberalism across the last three decades has disturbed significantly all models of the Welfare State, expressed in the impact of 'New Managerialism'. Thus we are seeing a convergence towards an imposed, instrumental, output-driven approach to the delivery of both education and welfare. In both the UK and continental Europe youth workers and social workers are confronted with intrusive interventions and demands from governments, which are utterly at odds with their shared desire to start from 'where young people are at'. In this paper we sketch the emergence of a campaign within Youth Work, which seeks to oppose and resist its transformation into an agency of social engineering. In contrast we stand for an emancipatory Youth Work committed to social change. In telling our story thus far we hope to reach out to and make alliances with workers across Europe sympathetic to our cause.

Scoping Electronic Communication Privacy Rules: Data, Services and Values

We use electronic communication networks for more than simply traditional telecommunications: we access the news, buy goods online, file our taxes, contribute to public debate, and more. As a result, a wider array of privacy interests is implicated for users of electronic communications networks and services. . This development calls into question the scope of electronic communications privacy rules. This paper analyses the scope of these rules, taking into account the rationale and the historic background of the European electronic communications privacy framework. We develop a framework for analysing the scope of electronic communications privacy rules using three approaches: (i) a service-centric approach, (ii) a data-centric approach, and (iii) a value-centric approach. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. The current e-Privacy Directive contains a complex blend of the three approaches, which does not seem to be based on a thorough analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. The upcoming review of the directive announced by the European Commission provides an opportunity to improve the scoping of the rules.