Social Welfare Discourses and Scholars’ Ethical-Political Dilemmas in the Crisis of Neoliberalism

ABSTRACT

Discourse is central in promoting – or hindering – social change. This paper discusses the ethical-political dilemmas that academics face in developing progressive discourses on social welfare in the hegemonic crisis of neoliberalism. A central dilemma concerns the (implicit or explicit) target of their discourse. Speaking to elites reproduces dominant values and interests, reinforcing central elements of neoliberalism such as economisation and de-politicisation. Moreover, this approach remains technocratic (i.e. academics act as experts), thereby failing to address citizens’ distrust towards ‘scientific evidence’ that characterises the hegemonic crisis of neoliberalism. A possible alternative is to work together with civil society and marginalised groups for promoting an oppositional discourse. In this way scholars may contribute to the democratisation of the public sphere but may fail to influence the content of policies, remaining trapped in marginal political positions. The paper illustrates this tension focusing on ‘social investment’. This discourse – which is today the most important framework for welfare reform among academics – emphasises the economic benefits of social policy for promoting alternatives to welfare retrenchment. Building on a research project aimed at re-thinking social investment from Sen's capability perspective, the paper discusses the conditions for developing a post-neoliberal discourse on social welfare.

KEYWORDS:

• Capability approach
• democratisation
• discourse
• hegemonic crisis
• neoliberalism
• public sociology
• social investment
• welfare reform

Acknowledgements

For insightful comments on earlier drafts I thank Michel Oris and Richard Settersten as well as the two anonymous reviewers of this Journal. I am also grateful for the many discussions on the subject of this paper with my colleagues of the Re-InVEST project, and especially to Jean-Michel Bonvin and Rory Hearne. All errors remain my exclusive responsibility.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Francesco Laruffa is Research Fellow at the University of Geneva, where he is member of the research network LIVES (‘Overcoming Vulnerabilities – Life Course Perspectives’) and of the CESCAP (Center for the study of capabilities in social and health services).

Additional information

Funding

This work is supported by the EU H2020 research and innovation programme (project ‘Re-InVEST – Rebuilding an Inclusive, Value-Based Europe of Solidarity and Trust through Social Investments’, grant number 649447) and by the SEFRI (Swiss Confederation). The information and views set out here are those of the author and do not reflect the official opinions of the European Union or of the Swiss Confederation.