The 1970s saw a wide ranging debate in Britain, initiated by Sir Keith Joseph, on the apparent existence of a ‘cycle of deprivation’. Most participants viewed this debate as having originated in the 1960s, but in fact versions of the general concept of an inter-generational ‘underclass’ have figured prominently in social debates during the past one hundred years. In particular, in the inter-war period there were several investigations of an hereditary ‘social problem group’, investigations which were crucial to a wider conservative social reformist strategy. These investigations produced inconclusive results, however, because ultimately the underclass is a statistical artefact, the existence of which can only be argued by the use of several serious methodological contradictions.

The focus of this paper is on the nature of the egalitarian policy objectives of the welfare state, and on the evaluation and assessment of social policies in the light of those objectives. This focus reflects the pervasive but often ill-defined presence of equality as an objective for social policy, without asserting that it is either unique or uncontested as an objective. The paper does not offer an evaluation of the success or failure of the welfare state in relation to equality; rather it is concerned with exploring what might be and is meant by equality as a target for social policy, with presenting some contrasting conceptions of equality, and with discussing the implications of the multiple meanings of equality for the way in which we think about issues in social policy and, in particular, about the impact of social welfare programmes.

This paper examines the proposition that the welfare policies enacted and legitimised in the name of ‘choice’ have the effect of increasing the effective choice of service by consumers of welfare. The example of residential care of the elderly is used to illustrate the ways in which privatisation has influenced choices of care for elderly people in Devon. The paper reviews empirical material from two surveys of private homes in Devon in order to throw light on the ‘myths’ and realities of choice in residential accommodation and in other welfare provision available to the elderly in Devon. The paper identifies as the key debate the question of priorities: whether resources should be concentrated on providing suitable residential places for the increasing number of the very disabled elderly or used to increase the alternatives for the larger, more able groups. The latter option can perhaps be reasonably achieved through market mechanisms, whilst the former is more likely to require the specialised skills of social workers and other caring professionals. Although it is possible to argue that the growth in numbers of private old people's homes represents an increase in choice for the elderly, on closer examination this appears too simple an assertion. The expansion of the private sector has not necessarily expanded the range of alternative forms of care. In particular, there seems a major flaw in current policies by which the operation of the DHSS subsidy increases the availability of residential rather than domiciliary care.

Widening inequality in the distribution of resources, higher rates of unemployment and deteriorating conditions in the inner cities have concentrated attention in Britain, and elsewhere in Europe, upon the idea and exact meaning of ‘deprivation’. This scientific concept is used extensively not only in the analysis of social conditions but also, in an applied form, as an instrument of policy in allocating resources to particular regions, areas and services. This paper argues that the indicators which are chosen to represent the phenomenon are often unduly restricted and even involve double counting. As a result the distribution and severity of deprivation seems to be seriously misperceived and resources misallocated. A review of the available studies shows how the concept might be treated more coherently in relation to that of poverty.

Three approaches to defining poverty levels are discussed—social consensus approaches, budget standard methods, and behavioural approaches. Each addresses different questions and none, of itself, has provided—nor, it is argued, could ever provide—an objective definition of poverty. The paper then raises problems that have been largely neglected in defining poverty. First, the treatment of time and home production: the time and ability of individuals to prepare food or to wash and feed without assistance, for example, vary greatly depending on circumstances and in turn affect income needs. Choices and constraints affecting the household formations in which people live and their budgeting behaviour are also important in assessing poverty. Individual variations in behaviour need to be explicitly recognised if practical definitions of poverty levels are to be found. Finally, the paper condemns discussions of poverty that are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Recent changes in the law have made it possible to pay adopters in certain circumstances for the upkeep of their children. This is a policy change which has been controversial since it challenges values concerning not only the nature of adoption but also the boundaries between State and parental responsibility. It also represents a significant extension of local authority powers with regard to income maintenance. This raises issues of equity in relation to central government benefits for the maintenance of children and other forms of help available to disadvantaged families.

Whilst quantitive and ‘positivist’ modes of comparative social policy can reveal significant structural factors involved in the making of welfare states, they too often ignore the role of human agency, intention and political processes. A critical-historical comparative case study of the introduction of ‘child endowment’ and of ‘family allowances’ respectively in Australia (1941) and in Canada (1944) reminds us of the interplay between structural constraints and human agency in the history of welfare states. Detailed analysis suggests that institutionalised arrangements in Australia after 1905 to resolve capital-labour conflict via arbitral and wage fixation mechanisms put the question of the adequacy of wages in meeting family needs and with it proposals for child endowment onto the public agenda as early as 1920. In Canada the absence of such mechanisms, and alternative welfare arrangements to deal with family welfare, combined to keep such proposals off the public agenda. After 1939 the development of ‘war economies’ in Australia and Canada created common contradictions for governments, trying to maintain both industrial peace and anti-inflation policies, which the introduction of family allowances in both countries were attempts to resolve. Consideration is also given to a range of political problems and contexts in both countries which this particular policy measure attempted to deal with.

This article examines the special role of the private rented sector in the provision of housing in London. The proportion of households who rent privately continues to be much higher in the capital than in the rest of the country. The reasons for this are analysed, together with the type of households that are found in the sector in London, and the sort of accommodation they obtain. The conclusion is reached that while the operation of the sector in London does differ in some important ways from the rest of the country, the major difference is simply its greater size in London. A forecast is then made of future trends. Finally, the likely effects of different policy options on those already in, and those seeking to enter the sector, are assessed.

Following its recent reorganisation of the management of the hospital sector of the NHS, the Government is currently engaged in a review of the primary health care sector. Certain of its proposals may be interpreted as suggesting movement towards a system modelled on American-style Health Maintenance Organisations (HMOs). This article seeks to explore the context in which HMOs have developed, to assess their current performance and to evaluate their potential impact on the health delivery system. It suggests that they must be understood primarily in the context of initiatives aimed at reducing health expenditure, and finds that the cost advantages claimed for them are achieved through reduced utilisation rather than through greater efficiency. It also argues that this reduced utilisation is likely to increase inequalities in health care.

Nottingham is one of 23 local authorities designated as ‘programme authorities’ under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. Between 1983 and 1985 the authors carried out research into the formulation of inner city policy, its application to the Radford area in particular and the opinions of residents there about its impact. Interviews with a wide range of those involved with policy including local authority officers and members and representatives of the police, the health authority and regional Department of the Environment (DoE) revealed considerable institutional and political barriers to a joint inner city strategy in a shire district, even where the same party holds political control. Structures set up to liaise are cordial but clumsy, slow and very much removed from daily service delivery. As elsewhere, the local authorities are critical of lack of central government commitment to this part of the Urban Programme, but nevertheless work well with regional DoE. Paradoxically, however, despite their criticisms of a lack of central funds and of inappropriate spatial and other parameters, the local authority and health authority respondents are anxious for the Programme to continue as it provides both the resources and the justification for innovatory and redistributive projects which would otherwise have been financially and politically impossible.

Since Beveridge, budget standards have been neglected in British social policy research. Empirical effort has concentrated on developing social indicator methods of investigating relative poverty. This paper explores the potential of budget standards for assessing whether the scale rates of supplementary benefit are adequate. Three applications of budget standard methodology are presented.

Patterns of leaving home vary between classes in terms of the reason for the move, its timing, reversibility of the process, and the type of accommodation entered on leaving the family of origin. The association between leaving home and marriage is seen to be weakening as more young people move into single independent housing prior to marriage. The notion of transitional housing is raised, and it is argued that there will be an increasing demand for such housing, characterised by suitable accommodation for the single, geographically mobile young. The study draws upon evidence in the General Household Survey and the National Child Development Study.

Evidence from surveys suggests that when married men become unemployed their wives tend also to withdraw from paid work. This apparent relationship between the labour supply behaviour of spouses has never been fully explained. One of the most frequently cited reasons for this effect is the very small amount that wives are able to earn without incurring deductions from the family's social security benefits, but other factors may be equally, or more, important. This article reviews both the evidence of this effect and a number of reasons that have been adduced to account for it, and ends with proposals for further explanatory research.

There has been an ongoing dispute about inequalities in health ever since the suppressed publication of the Black Report in 1980. It has recently been given a new edge by three publications: the proceedings of an SSRC Workshop held in November 1983 and the Registrar General's Decennial Supplement for 1979–1983, and another half-suppressed report, this time from Health Education Council. The first and third broadly claim that inequalities in health are widening; the second that they are irrelevant. This paper reviews the debate since 1980 around the issues of measurement (how to assess differences between social groups and how to compare across time) and the four kinds of explanation examined by the Black Report. The concluding discussion emphasises the essentially political nature of the debate over the ‘trends’ but concludes that, whilst most agree on the importance of materialist/structuralist variables, there are differences in the policy implications of the different explanatory positions. However, on the whole these will not be resolved by ‘further research’: the time is long overdue for a redistribution of resources to eradicate poverty.

The principal problematic issue in all poverty measures is the source and status of the standards of needs and deprivation. Rejection of minimum subsistence or quasi-absolute approaches to defining poverty, and acceptance of the social relativism of poverty, logically demand that the indicators of deprivation equally be derived from the society in question and not be prescribed for it by ‘experts’. The paper reviews the policy implications of the distinction between deprivation and poverty, and discusses two principal approaches to empirical methods of establishing ‘consensual’ measures of poverty: the income proxy method and the deprivation indicator method. The paper also distinguishes sociologically-based poverty lines from politically-based social security scales, outlining some important aspects of the theoretical and methodological relations between them.

‘Consensual’ methods, which seek to establish poverty lines by reference to the views of society as a whole, are an important recent development. Three variants are recognised: those which require the public to estimate an adequate minimum income; those which ask people to specify a list of necessary items and those which ask what level of benefits the public is prepared to fund. This paper suggests that attempts to operationalise the consensual approach have been frustrated by their reliance on survey methodology. Some thoughts are offered on a possible methodology, based on the use of qualitative techniques, which would first explore consensus on the definition of poverty and then, if appropriate, seek directly to determine a socially approved budget standard.