Search

When governments acquire third-party social welfare services (SWS), they create institutions of acquisition. The rules and practices that governments adopt define who is able to participate, on what basis, and how prices are determined. This paper conceptualizes the institutions of SWS acquisition, their variations, and implications, in order to contribute to a deeper understanding of the link between contracting and nonprofit commercialisation. Institutions of SWS acquisition include rules of entry, participation, and assessment. Resulting acquisition regimes can be marketised to a greater or lesser extent, and this is influential through its effect on nonprofit competition. Drawing on interviews with public servants and nonprofit staff, the paper compares acquisition regimes for homelessness services in England, a regime that closely resembles a market, and Canada, a regime which is not marketised. In contrast to their non-marketised counterparts, this paper finds that marketised SWS acquisition regimes create incentives for participants to reduce prices by loss-leading or ratcheting down service quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Personalisation has now become centre-stage in adult social care and continues to have an enduring level of political commitment and on-going appeal for many disabled people. And yet its roll-out has taken place during a time of austerity where central governments in many neo-liberal countries are re-imagining (read: shrinking) their role in social care provision. This paper reports on findings from an empirical study of relevant government officials from different countries which have advanced personalisation: Canada, England and the US. It reports on their views on personalisation and the remaking of adult social care, and managing expectations for change. Despite the relative success of personalisation, the findings reveal a tempered, cautious account, with respondents aware of the pitfalls and risks inherent in self-led support, government limitations in changing systems and an end to the primary involvement by the state in the creation of a social care market. With this in mind, the study's findings make a strong case for forms of ‘progressive localism’, as imagined by Featherstone et al. (2012), in galvanising local community resources alongside more radical politics in order to make self-led support achieve its desired outcomes on the ground. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]