Search

This article presents the theoretical foundations for an ongoing research project on elites and their perceptions of poverty and poor people within their own societies. The very broad connotations of the concepts "perceptions" and "poverty" allow them to be adapted to the wide array of circumstances that prevail in the very diverse societies that are to be studied in this comparative project. James Manor has applied the concept of social consciousness in a study of elites and their incapacities in coping with a mass poisoning of slum dwellers by illicit liquor in India. The most crucial set of data is drawn from open-ended interviews structured around predetermined topics with five to ten persons in each of 11 elite groups in every country under study. The interviews have the character of conversations, and should allow the reconstruction of some of the perceptions and personal motivations behind the positions displayed in public. Another set of data is drawn from observations of interaction and noninteraction between poor people and non-poor people, especially members of the elites, in business districts, shopping areas and thoroughfares. Such data yield an overall impression of the diverse ways in which visible poverty is dealt with.

The arena of social policy could be a constant battlefield were it not confined within political institutions. Conflicts are extended into the organisation of social programmes and exert pressure on policy objectives and the contents of the programmes. Social programmes can accommodate these pressures in different ways. During this process programmes become transformed, some to such an extent that their social policy value diminishes and they serve other needs than those which they were designed to meet. This is the muffling effect of social policy. Ideally a social programme can be constructed with a low conflict potential. In this paper some basic characteristics of a low conflict system of social security are identified. Three different systems of social security are compared with regard to these characteristics and it is asked how conflict-ridden the different systems have been since they were first introduced. The model seems to have some predictive power. The methodological problems of such an approach are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the introduction it was said that the way society forms its rules of confidentiality says a lot about that society. Some may argue that the above analysis has dealt exclusively with the negative effects of confidentiality. This is not a valid objection. Evaluations of consequences, be they negative or positive, can only be seen in relation to certain values. Those who wish to enforce confidentiality and those who stand to gain by strict enforcement of secrecy may hold that the consequences discussed are mostly negative, and that positive consequences have not been demonstrated. But those who wish for a more open society, reduced influence for the professions, more insight into society's distribution of goods or a better understanding of social problems, will find the analysis more positive. The analysis becomes positive, just because it reveals the negative aspects of confidentiality. Thus, evaluations of negative versus positive consequences are above all in the eye of the beholder. Moreover, when professional secrecy is placed in a wider context, it becomes difficult to take a clear position either for or against an expansion or a strict enforcement of confidentiality.

Professional secrecy, as it is practiced within the health and social sector, is under pressure from several sides. The aspects researchers have pointed to so far have received little attention, and for the time being they represent no great challenge to the fairly strict enforcement of professional secrecy. The pressure comes from quite different directions, such as new forms of treatment based upon ideologies of openness, increasing demands for democratization in both the health sector and society at large, and informal self-help groups based upon sharing of problems. The underlying ideology is a wish for a more open society where as many as possible should be brought to participate in areas of social life which have previously been limited to a restricted number of persons with authority and expertise. If these new ideas and ventures gain ascendancy, they will in turn lead to a change in the practice of professional secrecy and the principles of confidentiality, because they constitute one of the very barriers to the development of a more open society.

For a long time it has been a dogma that professional confidentiality first of all exists for the sake of the clients. This is a dogma to be challenged. It is also important to ask which other groups have an interest in the enforcement of confidentiality. What groups affect the moulding of professional confidentiality and what groups are affected by it? Or put in another way, who loses and who gains from a strong or a weak enforcement of confidentiality? It is no neutral instrument, but a means to handle flows of information in society. The greater the amount and importance of information subject to secrecy, the stronger an instrument for the execution of power it will be. The clients themselves have few or no possibilities to act upon the shaping of the rules regulating confidentiality. They provide information about themselves and are unable to control interpretation, forwarding and possible use of this information in other contexts. They are unaware that this information is used as part of a bigger game as to who is to wield influence, and that the professions need to control the flow of information in order to secure their positions. Secrecy may hide unfair decisions and skewed distribution of privileges, and measures to correct irregularities cannot be put into effect.

Introduces a series of articles for the June 1982 issue of the journal "The Social Functions of Confidentiality."

This article provides information on the conference on The Sociology of Social Security. Innovation and Change, held by the ISA Research Committee on Poverty, Social Welfare and Social Policy and the Department of Health and Social Policy Studies, University of Bergen, in collaboration with the International Social Security Association, held in Bergen, Norway in June 1984. Forty-eight people from 15 countries and 4 continents participated. The general aim of the conference was an assessment and comparison across national boundaries as to the present situation of social security research. The specific topic was innovation and change. During the last few years social security systems have been under pressure in most countries. Some of the suggestions represent innovations with great potential for change, while others are merely repetitions of recommendations which have accompanied the social security system from its early days. The conference papers touched on several of these issues. In focus were the distributional effects of different kinds of social security benefits, analyses of decision-making forces within the social security system and their relevance--or lack of such to the administration of the system, and the political forces influencing the future of social security.