when debility provides a future: preventing vertical transmission of HIV

Since coming to power in 2010, the UK Coalition government has enacted a series of cuts to public spending, under the auspices of austerity. Underpinning these cuts is a neo-liberal model of citizenship, in which citizens are expected to be autonomous, independent and economically productive, and in which the responsibilities of citizenship outweigh the rights. This model of citizenship is characterised by a paradoxical approach to social reproduction. The Coalition government has taken a significant interest in social reproduction as a means of creating the next generation of ‘good’ neo-liberal citizens; yet, the current austerity measures involve the withdrawal of state support for social reproduction activities. Drawing on participant observation carried out with migrant women’s groups in Sheffield and Manchester, as well as interviews with group members, this article demonstrates how the government’s paradoxical approach to social reproduction, combined with gendered and racialised discourses of citizenship and ‘Britishness’, have led to policies that place ethnic minority migrant women in an untenable situation. The social reproduction activities of ethnic minority migrant women are the subject of intense government interest, because of the concern that they will be unable to produce ‘good’ neo-liberal citizens. In some cases, this has led to government policies clearly intended to dissuade ‘undesirable’ migrants from having children. In other cases, migrant women are expected to show their commitment to integration, both for themselves and their children, specifically by learning English, even as the government has drastically cut funding for English as a Second or Other Language (ESOL) classes. While seemingly paradoxical, this is in keeping with a racialised neo-liberal model of citizenship under which the ‘responsible’ migrant mother should be able to parent and learn English without government assistance. Nonetheless, these policies are actually self-defeating, as they prevent migrant women from exhibiting the very characteristics of neo-liberal citizenship that they are ostensibly trying to encourage.     

Family caregivers and decision-making for older people with dementia

This article addresses the dilemmas concerning legislation, individual autonomy and the reality of everyday life for people coping with dementia. We describe and analyse decision-making in relation to older people with dementia in Sweden, within the area of social work regulated by the Social Services Act and the Parental Act. Swedish legislation is based on the individual’s autonomy and capacity to consent to services without anyone having legal authority to decide on behalf of the individual. Based on data from interviews with family caregivers living at home, decision-making through family caregivers is discussed and formal guardianship is also considered. Swedish legislation leaves individuals with dementia and family caregivers in a vacuum between self-determination and full autonomy with the ideal of citizenship emphasised and recognised in the Social Services Act on the one hand, and on the other, a strong need for support in everyday life and with decision-making.     

The shaping of collective values through deliberative democracy: An empirical study from New York's North Country

Participatory planning and policy analysis has gained increasing attention in recent years because of its potential to improve the knowledge base for policy design (substantive benefits), increase the likelihood of stakeholder compliance and support (instrumental benefits), and strengthen the democratic legitimacy of public policies (normative benefits). Deliberation among stakeholders is considered essential for participatory policy analysis, representing a democratic process for clarifying the particular as well as the collective goals and values as well as the potential impacts of alternative policies. This study examines the effects of democratic deliberation on participants' viewpoints of the policy domain (the local food system), based on two-and-a-half day participatory planning events in each of six rural counties in northern New York. Participant viewpoints were assessed several weeks before and after these events, using Q methodology. The results reveal three major viewpoints, representing concerns for social justice, the viability of conventional agriculture, and the potential environmental and social externalities associated with conventional agriculture. The substance of these viewpoints remain unchanged before and after the deliberative events, but the salience of the conventional agriculture viewpoint increased and the salience of the social justice and alternative agriculture viewpoints decreased significantly, even among those participants who most clearly defined the latter two viewpoints. These findings, together with an analysis of the action agendas emerging from these planning events, suggest that local deliberative processes may produce outcomes that are neither fair nor efficient and that reflect the values and interests of certain stakeholders more than others, even in the absence of overt conflict. Moreover, it appears that such processes may cause some participants to alter their viewpoints in ways that appear contrary to their values and interests as expressed prior to the deliberative event. The implications for participatory policy analysis are explored.