Graham Bowpitt

Human dignity and welfare systems

Human dignity and social policy Rationality, sociability and human dignity Respect, social participation and four welfare states Hong Kong and human dignity China and human dignity The UK and human dignity Sweden and human dignity Comparing dignity in four welfare systems Human dignity and welfare systems.

Rights, responsibilities and refusals: Homelessness policy and the exclusion of single homeless people with complex needs

Since 1977 homelessness legislation in England has offered limited statutory accommodation rights to unintentionally homeless people who are judged to be in priority need and able to demonstrate a local connection. Using data generated in interviews with homeless people and staff working to support them, this paper considers the impact of current homelessness policy and practice and explores how decisions about intentionality, priority need and local connection serve to exacerbate the social exclusion experienced by single homeless people with multiple support needs. It is concluded that a more genuinely inclusive welfare state will only emerge when, and if, policymakers and wider society are able to abandon their current fixation with using welfare policy to punish ‘irresponsible’ behaviour and refocus instead on providing services to adequately meet the basic needs of marginalised people.

Welfare state without dependency : the case of the UK Chinese people

The present study was based on data from 100 face-to-face interviews, supplemented by findings from 316 respondents in a national postal survey, and shows that UK Chinese respondents were family-orientated and self-reliant, having low expectations of public welfare. These features challenge the myth of welfare dependency of ethnic minorities. Also, compared with Chinese welfare practices based on strong moral values and duties towards other people, New Labour’s welfare culture lacks a solid social and ethical base for nurturing the concepts of duty and self-reliance.

The support priorities of multiply excluded homeless people and their compatibility with support agency agendas – new research into multiple exclusion homelessness

Purpose – This paper aims to throw light on the value of accommodation and support services and the likely consequences of their withdrawal.Design/methodology/approach – Research was completed by a team of researchers from Nottingham Trent and Salford Universities under the Multiple Exclusion Homelessness programme funded by CLG, the Economic and Social Research Council and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Findings – Agencies whose priorities are influenced by other agendas arising from statutory limitations or government targets have conflicting priorities that sustain multiple exclusion homelessness in a number of key circumstances.Originality/value – Findings from this research will enable policy‐makers and practitioners to take better account of service user perspectives, experiences and priorities.