Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:57:28.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flexible Contracting? Economic Cultures and Implicit Contracts in Social Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2000

Maureen Mackintosh
Maureen Mackintosh*
Affiliation:
The Open University, Milton Keynes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on case studies from two local authorities, this article identifies two distinct economic cultures in social care contracting. An arms-length contracting culture was emerging in interaction with risk-averse commercial suppliers, while a ‘partnership’ contracting culture was developing in association with non-profit providers who actively sought risk and responsibility. The article explores the discursive construction of the distinct implicit contracts associated with the two economic cultures, showing that ‘flexibility’ had become a key trope in contracting debate, carrying complex meanings of both responsiveness and control. The article thus unpacks the notion of ‘soft’ contracting in social care, and argues that social care contracting should be understood as a process of mutual shaping of both a divided care industry and an internally divided local authority economic culture. The article then draws out a series of implications of the research for policy and regulation in care contracting.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

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.)

Footnotes

This article draws on a research project, entitled Economic Culture and Local Governance, which formed part of the ESRC's Local Governance Programme. The financial support of the ESRC, and also of the Open University, is gratefully acknowledged, as is the intellectual input of Madeleine Wahlberg, the research fellow on the project. The researchers are also most appreciative of the generosity with time and information of the staff of the two authorities that agreed to host the project. For comments on earlier versions of this paper and for encouragement, the author would like to thank: John Clarke, Chris Cornforth, Celia Davies, Sue Himmelweit, Jane Lewis, participants in the Voluntary Sector Studies Network and two anonymous referees. The views expressed are the sole responsibility of the author.