Welfare Lobby Groups responding to Globalisation: A Comparison of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the UK Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG)

The past decade has witnessed a period of intense economic globalisation. The growing significance of international trade, investment, production and financial flows appears to be curtailing the autonomy of individual nation states. In particular, globalisation appears to be encouraging, if not demanding, a decline in social spending and standards. However, many authors believe that this thesis ignores the continued impact of national political and ideological pressures and lobby groups on policy outcomes. In particular, it has been argued that national welfare consumer and provider groups remain influential defenders of the welfare state. For example, US aged care groups are considered to be particularly effective defenders of social security pensions. According to this argument, governments engaged in welfare retrenchment may experience considerable electoral backlash (Pierson 1996; Mishra 1999). Yet, it is also noted that governments can take action to reduce the impact of such groups by reducing their funding, and their access to policy-making and consultation processes. These actions are then justified on the basis of removing potential obstacles to economic competitiveness (Pierson 1994; Melville 1999).

Book review of “Germany in Transit: Nation and Migration, 1955-2005”. 588 pages, University of California Press, 2007, by Deniz Göktürk, David Gramling and Anton Kaes (eds.)

Though migration is an age-old feature of human activity, driven by various circumstances, its current place in the midst of global dynamics and the phenomenon of globalization is becoming increasingly critical. International immigration and its regulation have been largely shaped by the policies in the receiving countries, often determining preferences for nationality cohorts and work skills to satisfy their labor and human capital requirements. When immigration has been necessitated by political strife, host countries have displayed immense magnanimity as well. However, the growing realization of resource limitations and the strange quirks of cultural pluralism are in turn creating waves of dissonance. Literature and the media are now replete with an in depth look into the immigration debate in various nations of the world in trying to seek new directions and satisfactory solutions.

Book Review of “At Risk: Social Justice in Child Welfare and Other Human Services” by Karen J. Swift and Marilyn Callahan, 2009, Toronto: University of Toronto Press

The newest book by Canadian social work scholars Karen Swift and Marilyn Callahan is exemplary of how other disciplines can invigorate social work theory. “At Risk” uses child welfare practice as an entry point for exploring the continuing movement away from addressing needs and towards the management of risk in the human services.