Social Control and Emancipation ? Ambiguities in Child Welfare

Child welfare may be regarded either as a tool used by the authorities to exercise social control over family life, or as a weapon supporting the cause of children, striving to emancipate them from both parental and societal neglect or oppression. Research into Norwegian child welfare in the period since the Second World War reveals an ambiguous picture: the intervention of the state into family life signals both tightening social control of all family members and emancipation of the less powerful from patriarchal rule. As the rights and needs of children are considered more important, the control of parents, especially the mother, is increased. The central position of children and their interests have been strengthened in child welfare legislation. However, it is not the child, but the child welfare officials who define what is 'in the best interest of the child'. Post-war development has not granted children autonomy. Child welfare legislation is still mainly paternalistic. In child welfare casework, there is a danger that the lived experience of the child never emerges from the shadows cast by the interaction between adults. In relation to older children who came in contact with child welfare primarily because of their own problem behaviour, the ambiguity of emancipation and control has taken a somewhat different shape. The authorities wanted to keep these children out of prison. Humanitarian considerations, however, have been coupled with hopes of more effective crime prevention. In the postwar years, misbehaving children were also embraced by the increasing importance of 'the best interest of the child' as the main objective in child welfare decisions. In order to secure both emancipation and control, 'the best interest of the child' and the state's interest in preventing crime had to be understood as one and the same.     

Welfare Reform and the Shifting Threshold of Support for Disabled People

Among the highly significant changes to the benefits system made by the Welfare Reform Act 2012 is provision for a new disability benefit, personal independence payment (PIP). PIP is replacing disability living allowance (DLA), received by three million people, as the principal form of state financial support towards disability‐related care and mobility costs for those of working age. The legislation, including regulations prescribing a new disability assessment framework, plays its traditional role in this field of rationing access to benefit and directing front‐line policy implementation. This article examines how, in the context of the Coalition government's welfare reforms, PIP shifts the threshold of entitlement for people with disabilities and it assesses PIP's potential impact on equality and the right to independent living, to whose realisation disability benefits may be expected to contribute significantly. It also considers the impact on disabled people of other relevant reforms, including the controversial ‘bedroom tax’.     

‘Supportive Parenting’, Responsibility and Regulation: The Welfare Assessment under the Reformed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990)

Section 13(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 requires fertility clinics, before offering regulated treatment services, to take account of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment and any other child affected by that birth. This paper presents the findings of an empirical study examining the impact on practice of the controversial reform of this section in 2008. While the broad values underpinning section 13(5) appear well embedded in clinic staff's engagement with ethical issues, there is little evidence that practice has been influenced by the 2008 amendments. A complex picture emerged regarding the implementation of section 13(5), particularly in its interaction with other factors, such as funding criteria and professional norms around counselling, implying a higher level of ongoing attention to likely parenting ability – particularly that of single women – than might be expected from a reading of the statute and guidance alone.     

个殊化与融贯性:基本文化权益保障的规范内涵论

文化产业与文化事业是基本文化权益保障研究的两类主要视域,但文化事业视域中的相关价值与规范交互性研究往往为学界所忽略。在我国最基本的文化服务事项尚未实现充分平权供给的前提下,该类研究更显其现实意义。有必要在我国基本文化权益保障所依托的公共文化服务体系发生系统变革的背景下,从价值目标与权益事项这两个方面来尝试解构文化事业视域中基本文化权益保障的规范内涵,以提供必要的原理原则层面的概念指引。应根据不同类型的服务供给方而凸显基本文化权益保障的个殊化价值目标,公益性文化单位提供的服务是义务非营利性的,经营性文化单位提供的服务则是激励非营利性的。在此基础上,基于非营利性价值目标所蕴含的社会效益最大化考量,从文化参与权益、文化成果分享权益和文化平等权益这三个方面,来厘清基本文化权益保障的融贯性权益事项。