Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-mgjtl Total loading time: 0.459 Render date: 2022-06-28T02:47:31.073Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Choice and Values: Individualised Rational Action and Social Goals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

PETER TAYLOR-GOOBY*
Affiliation:
School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF email: p.f.taylor-gooby@kent.ac.uk

Abstract

For excellent reasons, in response to pressures from social, economic and political changes, welfare states are undergoing reform. A central theme in the new policies, particularly influential in the UK, is the use of incentives through activation programmes and reforms to public sector management to promote rational responsible choices by both service users and providers. The theoretical underpinning of this approach relies on a model of people as plural in their values, but holding values that are independent from social context and institutional framework. Policy seeks to harness those values to produce desired behaviour. This article focuses on two relevant literatures. Analyses of rational action at an individual level by economic psychologists, evolutionary biologists and game theorists indicate that the context in which choices are framed influences responses. Further work by economic sociologists and social psychologists suggests that the values that guide behaviour have an important social element as normative systems embodied in institutional frameworks. The norms appropriate to market interactions typically differ from welfare norms, so that different value frameworks and responses apply. The implication is that the transition to quasi-market and individualised incentive systems risks damaging the norms that sanction support for distant but vulnerable groups. The article falls into three sections: reviewing the background to reform and the emergence of an emphasis on individualised rational choice, considering each of the literatures mentioned above and discussing policy consequences.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

6, P. (2003), ‘Giving consumers of British public services more choice’, Journal of Social Policy, 32: 2, 239–70.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. (1987), The Biology of Moral Systems, New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
Appleby, J. and Alvarez-Rossette, A. (2005), ‘Public responses to NHS reform’, in Park, A., Curtice, J., Thomson, K., Bromley, C., Phillips, M. and Johnson, M. (eds), British Social Attitudes, 22nd report, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Auletta, K. (1982), The Underclass, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1981), ‘The evolution of cooperation’, Science, 211: 4489, 1390–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldock, J. and Ungerson, C. (1994), ‘User perceptions of a mixed economy of care’, JRF Findings, http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialcare/SC55.asp, consulted 10.10.07.Google Scholar
Baldwin, P. (1990), The Politics of Social Solidarity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, K. (2004), Delivering Stability, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Barr, N. (1998), The Economics of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bartlett, W., Roberts, J. and Le Grand, J. (1998), A Revolution in Social Policy, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Bevan, G. and Hood, C. (2006), ‘Have targets improved performance in the English NHS?’, British Medical Journal, 332: 419–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanden, J., Gregg, P. and Machin, S. (2005), ‘Intergenerational mobility in Europe and America’, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2005), ‘The politics of the new social policies’, Policy and Politics, 33: 3, 431–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, S., Fong, C. and Gintis, H. (2001), Reciprocity and the Welfare State, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. (2002), ‘Group beneficial norms can spread rapidly in a cultural population’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 287–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, R. (2004), Social Mobility in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. (2003), Behavioural Game Theory, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. and Thaler, R. (1995), ‘Ultimatums, dictators and manners’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9: 2, 209–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, B. with Challis, D. (1986), Matching Resources to Needs in Community Care, Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976), The Selfish Gene, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dean, H. (2000), ‘Managing risk by controlling behaviour’, in Taylor-Gooby, P. (ed.), Risk, Trust and Welfare, Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. (2002), ‘Incentives and organizations in the public sector: an interpretative review’, Journal of Human Resources, 37: 4, 696727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. and Irwin, S. (2004), ‘The social patterning of values and rationalities’, Social Policy and Society, 3: 4, 391400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999), Social Foundations of Post-Industrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EU (2006), European Employment Guidelines 2006, Com 31.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U. and Gächter, S. (2002), ‘Strong reciprocity, human cooperation and the enforcement of social norms’, Human Nature, 13: 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (2000), ‘Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14: 3, 159181.Google Scholar
Field, F. (1989), Losing Out, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Frey, B. (1997), Not Just for the Money, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Frey, B. (2000), ‘Motivation and human behaviour’, in Taylor-Gooby, P. (ed.), Risk, Trust and Welfare, Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Frey, B. and Torgler, B. (2006), ‘Tax morale and conditional co-operation’, IERE, University of Zurich WP 286.Google Scholar
Gallup (1998), Haves and Have-Nots, Princeton, NJ: Gallup Organization.Google Scholar
Gershon, P. (2004), Releasing Resources to the Front Line: Government Efficiency Review, Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1994), Beyond Left and Right, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R. and Fehr, E. (2005), Moral Sentiments and Material Interests, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. and Le Grand, J. (1987), Not Only the Poor, London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. and Swedberg, R. (1992), The Sociology of Economic Life, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1985), ‘Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Guardian (2007), ‘Brown must trust the people on the NHS’, John Carvell, 19 May.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968), ‘The tragedy of the commons’, Science, 612: 1243–68.Google Scholar
Hedges, A. (2005), ‘Perceptions of redistribution’, Casepaper no. 96, CASE, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Heinrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H. and McElreath, R. (eds) (2004), Foundations of Human Sociality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, J. (2001), ‘Poverty and social security’, in Park, A., Curtice, J., Thomson, K., Jarvis, L. and Bromley, C. (eds), British Social Attitudes, 2001/2 edition, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hills, J. (2005), Inequality and the State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. (1970), Exit, Voice and Loyalty, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hoggett, P., Mayo, M. and Miller, S. (2006), ‘Private passions, the public good and public service reform’, Social Policy and Administration, 40: 7, 758–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, E. and Stephens, J. (2001), Development and Crisis of the Welfare State, Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPPR (2005), A Mature Policy on Choice, London: IPPR.Google Scholar
Jessop, B. (2002), The Future of the Capitalist State, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
King's Fund (2005), NHS Funding, London: King's Fund, 1 April.Google Scholar
Klein, R. (2000), The New Politics of the NHS, London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. (2003), Motivation, Agency and Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, J. (2006a), ‘Too little choice’, Prospect, 118, January.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. (2006b), ‘A better class of choice’, Public Finance Review, March.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Linos, K. and West, M. (2003), ‘Self-interest, social beliefs and attitudes to redistribution’, European Sociological Review, 19: 4, 393409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodemel, I. and Trickey, H. (2000), An Offer You Can't Refuse, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Matosevic, T., Knapp, M., Kendall, J., Henderson, K. and Fernández, J. L. (2007), ‘Care home providers as professionals’, Ageing and Society, 27: 1, 103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, L. (1994), Dangerous Classes, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Murray, C. (1984), Losing Ground, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mythen, G. (2005), ‘Employment, individualisation and insecurity’, Sociological Review, 53: 1, 129–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NCVO (2003), Charitable Giving in the UK, 1995–2003, London: NCVO.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W. (1971), Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
Olson, C. and March, J. (1995), Democratic Governance, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2000), ‘Collective action and the evolution of social norms’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14: 3, 137–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. and Walker, J. (1997), ‘Neither markets nor states’, in Mueller, D. (ed.), Perspectives on Public Choice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Park, A., Curtice, J., Thomson, K., Bromley, C., Phillips, M. and Johnson, M. (eds) (2005), British Social Attitudes, 22nd report, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Polanyi, K., Ahrensberg, C. and Pearson, H. (1971), Trade and Market in the Early Empires, Chicago: Henry Regnery (original 1957).Google Scholar
Pollock, A., Shaoul, J. and Vickers, N. (2002), ‘Private finance and “value for money” in NHS hospitals’, British Medical Journal, 324: 1205–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. (2003), ‘Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation’, Risk Analysis, 23: 5, 961–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poundstone, W. (1992), Prisoner's Dilemma, New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Powell, M. and Hewitt, M. (2002), Welfare State and Welfare Change, Buckingham: Open University Press .Google Scholar
Pratt, J. and Zeckhauser, R. (1985), Principals and Agents, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Propper, C., Wilson, D. and Burgess, S. (2006), ‘Extending choice in English health care’, Journal of Social Policy, 35: 4, 537–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, B. (2005), Social Traps and the Problem of Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sally, D. (1995), ‘Conversations and co-operation in social dilemmas: a meta-analysis 1958–92’, Rationality and Society, 7: 5892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F. (2007), ‘Coordination in hierarchies and networks’, in Bever, M. (ed.), Public Governance, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F. and Schmidt, V. (eds) (2000), Welfare and Work in the Open Economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schee, E., Groenewegen, P. and Friele, R. (2006), ‘Public trust in health care’, Health Organisation and Management, 20: 5, 468–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sefton, T. (2005), ‘Give and take’, in Park, A., Curtice, J., Thomson, K., Bromley, C., Phillips, M. and Johnson, M. (eds), British Social Attitudes, 22nd report, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1977), ‘Rational fools’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6: 4, 317–44.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1978), ‘Rationality as process and as product of thought’, American Economic Review, 68: 116.Google Scholar
Smelser, N. and Swedberg, R. (1994), Handbook of Economic Sociology, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (2001), ‘Trust and confidence’, British Journal of Social Work, 31: 287305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. and Wales, C. (2000), ‘Citizen juries and deliberative democracy’, Political Studies, 48: 1, 5165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. and Wilson, D. (1998), Unto Others, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, N. (2006), The Economics of Climate Change, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Svallfors, S. (1993), ‘Dimensions of inequality’, European Sociological Review, 9: 3, 267287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbot, C. (2006), ‘Public domain – there's no debate?’, Public Finance, 23 June.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004), ‘Open markets and welfare values’, European Societies, 6: 1, 2948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2006), ‘Trust, risk and health care reform’, Health, Risk and Society, 8: 2, 97103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2007), ‘The rational actor reform paradigm’, European Journal of Social Quality, 6: 2.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2008), ‘Trust and welfare state reform’, Social Policy and Administration, 42: 3, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titmuss, R. (1971), The Gift Relationship, London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, S. (2001), Education in a Post-Welfare Society, Buckingham: Open University.Google Scholar
Travers, T. (2006), ‘Busy, busy, busy’, Public Finance, 15 September.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (1971), ‘The evolution of reciprocal altruism’, Quarterly Review of Biology, 46: 3557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerson, C. (2000), ‘Thinking about the production and consumption of long-term care in Britain’, Journal of Social Policy, 29: 4, 623–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oorschott, W. and Halman, L. (2000), ‘Blame or fate, individual or social?’, European Societies, 2: 1, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. (1978), Economy and Society, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press (original 1922).Google Scholar
Weyman, A. and Kelly, C. (1999), ‘Risk perception and communication’, Health and Safety Executive, research report, 248/99.Google Scholar
Williams, F. (1988), Social Policy, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. (1975), Sociobiology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
40
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Choice and Values: Individualised Rational Action and Social Goals
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Choice and Values: Individualised Rational Action and Social Goals
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Choice and Values: Individualised Rational Action and Social Goals
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *