Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:32:45.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Governmental Promotion of Social Cohesion and Its Effect on Local Civil Society Organisations: How These Institutions Respond to the Inclusion of Vulnerable Groups as Active Citizens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

Stella Maris Semino
Stella Maris Semino*
Affiliation:
Institut for Samfund og Globalisering, Roskilde Universitet E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines how social policy influences social cohesion within a London borough. The focus is on the degree to which civil society organisations facilitate the representation of migrants within the public sphere. The policies considered are those introduced by New Labour and the current Coalition government. The theories adopted in this article are based on social cohesion and the public sphere, and the research is based on grey literature and interviews with civil society practitioners. The study concludes that, although the previous government gave visibility to migrants, the conditions imposed for their access to social provision have contributed to the demotion of cohesion. The Coalition's reforms have reinforced social divisions and given rise to two identities within civil society: the insiders, who are in dialogue with the authorities, and the outsiders, who have no contact with the decision makers.

Keywords

Active citizenshipsocial cohesionmigrantscivil societyausterityvolunteering
Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 189 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Ainsworth, D. (2010) ‘Francis-Maude-one-million-public-sector-workers-move-mutuals’, Third Sector http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/1056943/Francis-Maude-one-million-public-sector-workers-move-mutuals/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH, [accessed 29.04.2014].Google Scholar
Alcock, P. (2012) ‘New policy spaces: the impact of devolution on third sector policy in the UK’, Social Policy and Administration, 46, 2, 219–38.Google Scholar
Beasor, S. (2011) Housing Benefit and Welfare Reform: Impact of the Proposed Changes on Black and Minority Ethnic Communities, Better housing briefing 18, London: Race Equality Foundation, http://www.hqnetwork.org.uk/scripts/get_normal?file=7290 (accessed 7 October 2013).Google Scholar
British Social Attitudes (2012) ‘Immigration: fewer but better? Public views about immigration’, British Social Attitudes 29, http://www.bsa-29.natcen.ac.uk/read-the-report/immigration/introduction.aspx (accessed June 2013).Google Scholar
Camden (2007) Census and Non-Census Data for St Pancras and Somers Town Ward, London: London Borough of Camden, http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/ccms-service/download/asset?asset_id=1031394 [accessed 29.04.2014].Google Scholar
Camden (2010a) Voluntary and Community Sector Review-Working Together in a More Difficult Financial Climate, London: London Borough of Camden, http://www.volunteercentrecamden.org.uk/data/files/orgnews/consultation_document_pdf_1mb.pdf (accessed June 2011).Google Scholar
Camden (2010b) Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS): Investment and Support Programme 2012–2015, London: London Borough of Camden, http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/community-and-living/voluntary-organisations-and-funding/voluntary-and-community-sector-review-2010/voluntary-and-community-sector-vcs-investment-and-support-programme-2012--2015.en?page=3 (accessed June 2012).Google Scholar
Camden BME Alliance (2008) Camden BME Alliance, Annual Report, Charity Registration 1101643, 31 March 2008, Report deposited at the Charity Commission, http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk (accessed November 2012).Google Scholar
Camden Empowerment Network (2008) Jargon Buster, London: Camden Empowerment Network, camdencen.org.uk/jargonbuster.htm (accessed September 2012).Google Scholar
Camden Labour (2011) Camden Labour Backing the Strangers into Citizens, London: Camden Labour, http://camdenlabour.org.uk/category/somers-town/ (accessed 17 March 2014).Google Scholar
Camden Somali Cultural Centre (2012) ‘Accounts and reports for the year ended 31 March 2011’, Report deposited at the Charity Commission, http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk (accessed November 2012).Google Scholar
Chanan, G. and Miller, C (2011) The Big Society and Public Services: Complementarity or Erosion?, London: PACES Empowerment, http://www.scribd.com/doc/46254123/Big-Society-Public-Services (accessed January 2013).Google Scholar
Chalke, S. (2012) ‘Big Society opportunities’, Baptist Times, 10 May, http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/190-big-society-opportunities (accessed November 2012).Google Scholar
Charities Aid Foundation (2012) UK Giving 2012: An Overview of Charitable Giving in the UK, 2011/12, London: Charities Aid Foundation-National Council for Voluntary Organisations.Google Scholar
Day, K. and Devlin, R. (1998) ‘The payoff to work without pay: volunteer work as an investment in human capital’, The Canadian Journal of Economics, 31, 5, 1179–91.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: An Essential Guide, London: Department for Communities and Local Government, http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/decentralisationguide (accessed January 2013).Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1996) ‘After the golden age? Welfare state dilemmas in a global economy’, in Esping-Andersen, G. (ed.), Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies, London: SAGE Publications, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Etherington, S. (2012) ‘Spending cuts are “knocking out” sector's capacity to support the Big Society, NCVO head says’, Third Sector Online, http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Infrastructure/article/1120432/spending-cuts-knocking-out-sectors-capacity-support-big-society-ncvo-head-says/ (accessed January 2012).Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. (1993) The Spirit of Community: The Reinvention of American Society, New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
Flint, J. and Robinson, D. (2008) Community Cohesion in Crisis: New Dimensions of Diversity and Difference, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. (1990) ‘Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy’, Social Text, 25/26, 56–80.Google Scholar
Fraser, N., Dahl, H. M., Stoltz, P. and Willig, R. (2004) ‘Recognition, redistribution and representation in capitalist global society: an interview with Nancy Fraser’, Acta Sociologica, 47, 4, 374–82.Google Scholar
Gidley, B. and Jayaweera, H. (2010) An Evidence Base on Migration and Integration in London, Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Hackl, F., Halla, M. and Pruckner, G. (2007) ‘Volunteering and income: the fallacy of the Good Samaritan?’, Kyklos, 60, 1, 77–104.Google Scholar
Hackl, F., Halla, M., Pruckner, G. (2012) ‘Volunteering and the state’, Public Choice, 151, 3–4, 465–95.Google Scholar
Hatch, S. (1980) ‘The Wolfenden report on voluntary organisations’, in Baldwin, S. (ed.), The Yearbook of Social Policy in Britain, London: Routledge, pp. 101–1.Google Scholar
Jenson, J. and Saint-Martin, D. (2003) ‘New routes to social cohesion? Citizenship and the social investment state’, The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28, 1, 77–99.Google Scholar
Jones, G., Stewart, J. and Travers, T. (2011) ‘Genuine localism – the way out of the impasse’, in Oyarce, C. M. (ed.), Redefining Local Government, London: Public Management and Policy Association.Google Scholar
Kearns, A. and Forrest, R. (2000) ‘Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance’, Urban Studies, 37, 5/6, 995–1017.Google Scholar
London Borough of Camden (2011) ‘Community consultation on proposed sale of 32 Lawn Road’, London Borough of Camden, http://www.gonag.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Lawn-Road-consultation-doc-final1.pdf (accessed April 2012).Google Scholar
National Council for Voluntary Organisations (2009) The UK Civil Society Almanac 2009, London: National Council for Voluntary Organisations, http://data.ncvo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-UK-Civil-Society-Almanac-2009.pdf (accessed April 2012).Google Scholar
National Council for Voluntary Organisations (2012) Charity Workforce Shrinks by Nearly 9%, London: National Council for Voluntary Organisations, http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/news/people-hr-employment/charity-workforce-shrinks-nearly-9 (accessed April 2012).Google Scholar
National Survey of Charities and Social Enterprises (2010) Overall Report – Camden, London: Cabinet Office, http://www.nscsesurvey.com/results2010/download/ (accessed January 2013).Google Scholar
Plowden, W. (2003) ‘The compact: attempts to regulate relationships between government and the voluntary sector in England’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 3, 415–32.Google Scholar
Poppleton, S., Hitchcock, K., Lymperopoulou, K., Simmons, J. and Gillespie, R. (2013) Social and Public Service Impacts of International Migration at the Local Level, Research Report 72, London: The Home Office, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210324/horr72.pdf (accessed October 2013).Google Scholar
Portes, A. and Vickstrom, E. (2011) ‘Diversity, social capital and cohesion’, Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 461–79.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Reeskens, T. and van Oorschot, W. (2012) ‘Disentangling the “New Liberal Dilemma”: on the relation between general welfare redistribution preferences and welfare chauvinism’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 53, 2, 120–39.Google Scholar
Rutter, J. (2011) ‘Migration, migrants and child poverty’, CPAG Poverty Magazine, ISSUE 138, 6–10, http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG-Poverty138-Migrants-Child-Pov.pdf (accessed December 2013).Google Scholar
Sarfati, H. (2013) ‘Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, policies and challenges’, International Labour Review, 152, 2, 349–53.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2012) ‘The civil society route to social cohesion’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32, 7/8, 368–85.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013) ‘Why do people stigmatise the poor at a time of rapidly increasing inequality, and what can be done about it?’, The Political Quarterly, 84, 1, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The State of the London Boroughs (2007) Data Annex: the Local Futures Group, London: London Councils, www.londoncouncils.gov.uk (accessed April 2012).Google Scholar
Trust for London and New Policy Institute (2013) London's Poverty Profile 2013, London: Trust for London and New Policy Institute, http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/LPP_2013_Report_Web.pdf (accessed December 2013).Google Scholar
Wolfenden Committee (1978) Future of Voluntary Organisations, London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Zetter, R., Griffiths, D. and Sigona, N. (2006) Immigration, Social Cohesion and Social Capital: What Are The Links?, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/immigration-social-cohesion-and-social-capital-what-are-links (accessed January 2012).Google Scholar