Quasi‐welfare,associationalism and the social division of citizenship

It is widely acknowledged that in many advanced capitalist societies, the role and structure of the welfare state has undergone substantial changes in recent decades. Arguments continue about the precise causes, and about the trajectory and impact of those changes. One particular strand in the debate has concerned the nature of the transformation of the welfare state in relation to the wider economy, and whether these changes reflect a ‘post‐Fordist’ welfare regime; while another important theme concerns the consequences of cultural and social differentiation, and the extent to which ‘postmodernism’ entails a fundamental dissolution of conventional assumptions about social policy. Radical reconstruction of the institutions, and questioning of the functions of welfare states, are resulting in more complex and heterogeneous patterns of social provision. At the same time, increased theoretical emphasis on, and popular demand for, choice, consumerism and diversity represent a significant challenge to, and perhaps the abandonment of, longstanding precepts about universalism in welfare. This article reviews some of the key themes in this debate, and supports arguments that predict that the universalist goals and principles of welfare are likely to be displaced by moves towards a ‘marketised’ system of quasi‐welfare in an atomised, anomic and fragmented society. The article addresses several issues: first, it briefly discusses some of the main implications of recent theorising about post‐Fordism and postmodernism; secondly it considers the emergence and consequences of’ quasi‐markets’ in social policy; and finally it challenges the claim that the revival of ‘associationalism in civil society offers a remedy for some of the principal (alleged) defects of the welfare state.