The practice of social administration is founded on the human response to problems of industrialization and urbanization. Motivation and effort towards ‘social service’ were once taken for granted, but this seems no longer justified in the light of changes in the material and intellectual contexts in which service to the community is undertaken. These changes include the politicization of the service ideal; the emergence of radical social work; the managerialism of service reorganization; new interpretations of professional accountability; and new fashions in sociology and psychology. Although hitherto stable assumptions have been questioned, the dogmatic basis for recent developments and the reactions to them justify a fresh evaluation of the human factor in social administration. The human factor remains the basic resource in identifying and meeting social needs.

The statutory function of local health councils in Scotland (and of community health councils in England and Wales) is to represent the interests of the public in the health service. This article, based on data from a fouryear research project financed by the Scottish Office, examines official and participants' assumptions and claims about the legitimacy of health councils, as at present constituted, to carry out this function. Clarification of the basis of their legitimacy would assist, it is argued, in the resolution of a central dilemma: How are councils to represent the interests of the public? The conclusion is reached that inadequate thought was given to developing theoretically sustainable arrangements. Several interpretations of representation are admixed in the rationale for the present system and they cannot be aggregated to produce a coherent defence of it.

While pioneering has long been assumed to be the unique function of voluntary agencies, the flow of private invention to public adoption has rarely been studied empirically. Drawing on an exploratory study of twenty national agencies serving the physically and mentally handicapped, this article re-evaluates the vanguard role of the voluntary agency. Much of what has been regarded as ‘innovative’ consisted of small-scale, non-controversial, incremental improvements or extensions of programs with few original features to under-served clienteles. A series of external and internal organizational constraints to the statutory adoption of new programs is identified, which suggests that the conventional notion of voluntary pioneering is no longer appropriate. A new model of program change is proposed based on multiple outcomes and a redefinition of the concept of innovation. Some hypotheses are offered regarding conditions conducive to the initiation of new programs.

All social services are rationed, yet the effects of such rationing on the client are rarely fully explored. This article reviews the evidence on the existence of informal rationing devices in general practice. It examines the effects on patients of a wide range of informal rationing devices now used by individual general practitioners. Various suggestions for reforming the present rationing of primary medical care are evaluated and the likelihood of any reform being carried out is assessed. Although this article concentrates solely on rationing in the primary care sector of the National Health Service, the issues discussed are relevant to most welfare agencies as they are presently organized.

This article sets out to explore the ways in which social policy is catered for, at university level, in various European countries. It starts with a review of the ‘Sigriswil (1972 and 1973) Colloquia’ papers on ‘The Study of Social Policy: Teaching and Research’. Having weighed up the evidence – or lack of evidence – emanating from these get-togethers, the article then goes on to explore university social policy teaching – and the extent to which this may or may not constitute a coherent specialist programme – in selected West German, French, Swedish and Swiss (Geneva) university arrangements. Concluding comments on this evidence highlight several key aspects of debate so far as present and probable trends in social policy and administration education at university level in Britain are concerned.