In western capitalist societies the state has become increasingly criticized for its inadequacy as a mechanism for distributing welfare inclusively. In particular, it has been criticized for its lack of flexibility in meeting the needs of increasingly plural populations, and for being too distant to enable service users to participate in the meeting of their welfare needs. Consequently, in many countries, including the United Kingdom, voluntary and community associations have been used to distribute welfare with the belief that it can remedy the defects of universal state provision. This paper suggests the voluntary and community sector can only achieve this if the organizations are democratically organized, ensuring participation from staff and users. Moreover, participation should be based around the norms of deliberative democracy. The paper argues that this form of participation will best ensure that the needs, preferences, and interests of subordinate groups are included in social policy delivery, due to the fostering of public reason.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The analysis and recommendations of this paper should not be seen as limited to the UK, but as relevant to all Western capitalist societies. This is not to deny that that there are differences in welfare needs and trends in these countries, but rather that there still remain some key similarities that transcend these differences, even if they vary in salience.
Festenstein (2002, pp. 99–104) outlines three dominant justifications of deliberative democracy: the epistemic conception; deliberative democracy as fair procedure; and the prudential justification.
Sanders argues that it is more equipped to do this as it avoids people conforming with majority opinion due to the power of majority and the force of conformity (1997, p. 367).
Consider, Elstub (2003) for some suggestions as to how this might be achieved.
REFERENCES
Andersen, V., and Hansen, K. (2004). Deliberative democracy and the deliberative poll on the Euro. Scandinavian Political Studies 27(2), 261–286.
Beetham, D. (1993). Liberal democracy and the limits of democratisation. In: D. Held (ed.), Prospects for Democracy: North, South, East, West, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 55–73.
Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In: S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 67–94.
Bohman, J. (1996). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bohman, J. (1997). Deliberative democracy and effective social freedom: Capabilities, resources, and opportunities. In: J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 321–348.
Burman, E., Smailes, S., and Chantler, K. (2004). “Culture” as a barrier to service provision and delivery: Domestic violence services for minoritized women. Critical Social Policy 24(3), 332–357.
Cahill, M. (1994). The New Social Policy, Blackwell, Oxford.
Christiano, T. (1997). The significance of public deliberation. In: J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 243–277.
Clarke, C. (1998). Self-determination and paternalism in community care: Practice and prospects. British Journal of Social Work 28(3), 387–402.
Cohen, J. (1991). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: A. Hamlin and P. Pettit (eds.), The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 17–34.
Cohen, J. (1997). Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In: J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 67–91.
Cohen, J. (1998). Democracy and liberty. In: J. Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 185–231.
Cohen, J., and Rogers, J. (1995). Secondary associations and democratic governance. In: E. O. Wright (ed.), Associations and Democracy, Verso, New York, pp. 7–98.
Cohen, S. (2002). Dining with the devil: The 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act and the voluntary sector. In: S. Cohen, B. Humphries and E. Mynott (eds.), From Immigration Controls to Welfare Controls, Routledge, London, pp. 141–156.
Craig, G., Taylor, M., Monro, S., Wilkinson, M., Bloor, K., and Syed, A. (2002). Contract or Trust? The Policy Press, Bristol.
Deakin, N. (2001). Public policy, social policy and voluntary organisations. In: M. Harris and C. Rochester (eds.), Voluntary Organisations and Social Policy in Britain: Perspectives on Change and Choice, Palgrave, London, pp. 27–36.
Drake, R. (2001). The Principles of Social Policy, Palgrave, London.
Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Eckersley, R. (2000). Deliberative democracy, ecological representation and risk: Towards a democracy of the affected. In: M. Saward (ed.), Innovations In Democracy, Routledge, London, pp. 117–132.
Elster, J. (1989). Solomonic Judgments: Studies in the Limitations of Rationality, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Elster, J. (1998). Introduction. In: J. Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1–18.
Elstub, S. (2003). Cultivating Autonomy: A Case for Deliberative and Associational Democracy, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield.
Fearon, J. (1998). Deliberation as discussion. In: J. Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 44–68.
Festenstein, M. (2002). Deliberation, citizenship and identity. In: D’Entrèves (ed.), Democracy as Public Deliberation: New Perspectives, Manchester University Press, Manchester pp. 88–111.
Fishkin, J., and Luskin, R. (2000). The quest for deliberative democracy. In: M. Saward (ed.), Innovations in Democracy, Routledge, London, pp. 17–28.
Forbes, J., and Sashidharan, S. P. (1997). User involvement in services: Incorporation or challenge? British Journal of Social Work, 27(4), 481–498.
Fraser, N. (1987). Women, welfare and the politics of need interpretation. Hypatia 2(1), 103–121.
Fraser, N. (1989). Struggle over needs: Outline of a socialist-feminist critical theory of late capitalist political culture. In: N. Fraser (ed.), Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 161–187.
Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In: C. Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 109–143.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Penguin, London.
Gambetta, D. (1998). “Claro!” An essay on discursive machismo. In: J. Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 19–43.
Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
Giullari, S., and Shaw, M. (2005). Supporting or controlling? New Labour’s housing strategy for teenage parents. Critical Social Policy 25(3), 402–417.
Gould, C. (1996). Diversity and democracy: Representing differences. In: S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 171–186.
Hadley, R., and Hatch, S. (1981). Social Welfare and the Future of the State, Allen & Unwin, London.
Harris, M., Halfpenny, P., and Rochester, C. (2003). A social policy role for faith-based organisations? Lessons from the UK Jewish voluntary sector. Journal of Social Policy 32(1), 93–112.
Hirst, P. (1994). Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social Governance, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
Hodgson, L. (2004). Manufactured civil society: Counting the cost. Critical Social Policy 24(2), 139–164.
Howlett, S., and Locke, M. (1999). Volunteering for Blair: The Third Way. Voluntary Action 1(2), 67–76.
Hussain, Y., Atkin, K., and Ahmad, W. (2002). South Asian Disabled Young People and Their Families, The Policy Press.
Issues Deliberation Australia (1999). Press Releases. Online: www.ida.org.au
Kidger, J. (2004). Including young mothers: Limitations for supporting teenage parents. Critical Social Policy 24(3), 291–311.
Knight, J., and Johnson, J. (1994). Aggregation and deliberation: On the possibility of democratic legitimacy. Political Theory 22(2), 277–296.
Langan, M., and Clarke, J. (1994). Managing in the mixed economy of care. In: J. Clarke, A. Cochrane, and E. McLaughlin (eds.), Managing Social Policy, Sage, London, pp. 73–92.
Langan, M. (2000). Social services: Managing the Third Way. In: J. Clarke, and S. Gewirtz (eds.), New Managerialism, New Welfare? Sage, London pp. 153–168.
Mansbridge, J. (1980). Beyond Adversary Democracy, University of Chicago Press, London.
Martell, L. (1992). New ideas of socialism. Economy and Society 21(2), 52–72.
Mayo, M., and Weir, A. (1993). The future for feminist social policy. In: H. Dean and R. Woods (eds.), Social Policy Review 5, Social Policy Association, Luton, pp. 35–57.
Miller, D. (1993). Deliberative democracy and social choice. In: D. Held (ed.), Prospects for Democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 74–92.
Miller, D. (2000). Is deliberative democracy unfair to disadvantaged groups? In: D. Miller, Citizenship and National Identity, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 142–161.
Offe, C. (1995). Some skeptical considerations on the malleability of representative institutions. In: E. O. Wright (ed.), Associations and Democracy, Verso, New York, pp. 114–132.
Parkes, T., Taylor, M., and Wilkinson, M. (2004). From protest to partnership? Voluntary and community organisations in the democratic process. In: M. J. Todd, and G. Taylor (eds.), Democracy and Participation: Popular Protest and New Social Movements, Merlin, London pp. 307–325.
Pascall, G. (1997). Social Policy: A New Feminist Analysis, Routledge, London.
Powell, F., and Guerin, D. (1997). Civil Society and Social Policy: Voluntarism in Ireland, A&A Farmar, Dublin.
Rao, N. (1996). Towards Welfare Pluralism: Public Services in a Time of Change, Aldershot, Dartmouth.
Roberts, J. (1996). From discipline to dialogue. In: R. Munro and J. Mouritsen (eds.), Accountability: Power, Ethos and the Technologies of Managing, International Thompson Business Press, London, pp. 40–61.
Roßteutscher, S. (2000). Associative democracy: Fashionable slogan or constructive innovation. In: M. Saward (ed.), Innovations in Democracy, Routledge, London, pp. 172–183.
Rouse, J., and Smith, G. (1999). Accountability. In: M. Powell (ed.), New Labour, New Welfare State: The Third Way in British Social Policy, Policy Press, Bristol pp. 235–256.
Sagoff, M. (1998). Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics 24, 213–230.
Salamon, L., and Anheier, H. (1996). The Emerging Nonprofit Sector, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Sanders, L. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory 25(3), 347–376.
Squires, J. (2000). Group representation, deliberation and the displacement of dichotomies. In: M. Saward (ed.), Innovations in Democracy, Routledge, London, pp. 93–105.
Stears, M. (1999). Needs, welfare and the limits of associationslism. Economy and Society 28(4), 570–589.
Sunstein, C. (1985). Interest groups in American public law. Stanford Law Review 38(1), 29–87.
Sunstein, C. (1991). Preferences and politics. Philosophy and Public Affairs 20(1), 5–26.
Taylor, M. (1996). Between public and private: Accountability in voluntary organisations. Policy and Politics 24(1), 57–72.
Taylor, M., and Warburton, D. (2003). Legitimacy and the Role of the UK Third Sector Organisations in the Policy Process. Voluntas 14(3), 321–338.
Urbinati, N. (2000). Representation as advocacy: A study of democratic deliberation. Political Theory 28(6), 758–786.
Walker, A. (1999). The Third Way for pensions (by way of Thatcherism and avoiding today’s pensioners). Critical Social Policy 19(4), 511–527.
Ware, P., and Todd, M. J. (2001). The Voluntary Sector, Sheffield Hallam University Press, Sheffield.
Warren, M. (2001). Democracy and Association, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Weale, A. (2000). Conversations and democracy. Centre for the Study of Democracy: Bulletin 7(2), 1–2.
Whitfield, D. (2002). Afterword. In: M. Todd, P. Ware, and G. Taylor (eds.), Markets & the Welfare State, Sheffield Hallam University Press, Sheffield, pp. 121–150.
Williams, F. (1989). Social Policy: A Critical Introduction, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
Williams, F. (2000). Principles of recognition and respect in welfare. In: G. Lewis, S. Gewirtz, and J. Clarke (eds.), Rethinking Social Policy, Sage, London, pp. 338–352.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In: S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 120–136.
Young, I. M. (1997). Difference as a resource for democratic communication. In: J. Bohman, and R. William (eds.), Deliberative Democracy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 383–406.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank Matthew Festenstein, Anthony Arblaster, Malcolm Todd, and the Voluntas referees for very insightful comments on previous drafts of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Elstub, S. Towards an Inclusive Social Policy for the UK: The Need for Democratic Deliberation in Voluntary and Community Associations. Voluntas 17, 17–39 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-005-9003-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-005-9003-z