Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:47:30.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

‘Bringing Corporate Welfare In’ – and Pushing Further at the Boundaries of Social Policy: A Reply to Farnsworth (1)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2012

SALLY RUANE*
Affiliation:
School of Applied Social Science, De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH email: [email protected]

Extract

Kevin Farnsworth (this volume) exhorts us to recognise that corporations (by which he means any private company regardless of its ownership structure) are recipients of welfare provision in various forms: financial and in-kind, direct and indirect. He argues that a recognition of this by businesses, governments and the social policy community can foster greater complementarity in corporate and individual welfare measures and also potentially legitimise a greater tax contribution from these businesses towards public expenditure.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Barnard, A., Howell, S. and Smith, R. (2011), The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income 2009/10, Office for National Statistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D. and Ruane, S. (2012), ‘The distribution of the tax burden 2009/10’, Work in progress.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, K. (2004), Corporate Power and Social Policy in a Global Economy, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, K. and Holden, C. (2006), ‘The business–social policy nexus: corporate power and corporate inputs into social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 35: 3, 473–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosling, P. (2011), The Rise of the ‘Public Services Industry’ Updated, London: UNISON.Google Scholar
Green New Deal Group (2010), The Great Tax Parachute, London: NEF.Google Scholar
Hawkes, A. and Loveless, H. (2012), ‘Big five internet firms paid 0.8pc tax on UK profits’, Mail on Sunday, 14 April.Google Scholar
Horton, T. and Reed, H. (2010), Where the Money Goes: How We Benefit from Public Services, London: TUC.Google Scholar
Lawrence, F. (2012), ‘Britain's tax rules now written for and by multinationals’, The Guardian, 19 March.Google Scholar
Murphy, R. (2012), ‘Britain's tax rules now written for and by multinationals’, Tax Research UK blog, 19 March.Google Scholar
NAO (2011), Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on the Treasury's 2010–11 Accounts: The Financial Stability Interventions, London: National Audit Office.Google Scholar
Orton, M. and Davies, R. (2009), ‘Exploring neglected dimensions of social policy: the SDW, fiscal welfare and the exemplar of local taxation in England’, Social Policy and Administration, 43: 1, 3353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NI (2012), ‘The NHS carve-up has begun’, New Internationalist blog, 11 April.Google Scholar
Orton, M. and Rowlingson, K. (2007), ‘A problem of riches? Towards a new social policy research agenda on the distribution of economic resources’, Journal of Social Policy, 36: 1, 5977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Private Eye (2010), ‘Britain's £6bn Vodafone bill’, Private Eye, 11 November.Google Scholar
PAC (2011), 61st Report of the Public Accounts Committee – HM Revenue and Customs 2010–11 Accounts: Tax Disputes, London: TSO.Google Scholar
Rowlingson, K. and Connor, S. (2011), ‘The “deserving” rich? Inequality, morality and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 40: 3, 437–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinfield, A. (2003), ‘Changing tax welfare’, Paper presented at the ESPAnet Annual Conference, Copehnagen.Google Scholar
TBIJ (2012), Vodafone: Undercover Investigation Exposes Swiss Branches, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 6 March.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. (1958), Essays on the Welfare Sate, London: Unwin University Books.Google Scholar