社會政策與社會工作專業之間的連結：以英國為例

The Linkage between Social Policy and Social Work in England

本文目的在於以英國為例，嘗試著說明社會政策治理邏輯的改變如何影響其福利服務輸送體系，進而影響社會工作專業發展，藉此說明社會工作專業發展是如何鑲嵌於特定的國家文化、歷史脈絡和政治經濟脈絡中。在方法上，我們採取歷史追蹤分析方法。本文研究結果發現如下，在戰後福利國家的黃金年代，在以社會行政為基礎的科層治理形塑社會工作的專業主義上，社會工作者對於社會服務使用者的需求評估和處遇擬定都受限於科層體系的規範，也就是那些進入社會工作和社會服務體系的公民的社會權是被專業科層體系和法律所規範。在1980年代之後，西方福利國家立基於新自由主義，而使其治理模式轉往以管理主義以強調效率和選擇等價值，也影響社會工作轉向以管理主義為基礎，在論述上，強調透過個案管理、賦權和使能等概念以強化和正當化對於效率和個人責任的重視。但是，同時，新管理主義在過度強調效率和個人責任的情況下，反而削弱了社會工作者和接受服務者的自主性。2000年之後，社會投資政策理念興起，使得社會政策治理邏輯改以新公共治理為主，不再強調最佳模式，而必須反映了治理客體的現實，因此強調共同生產和網絡治理，且社會工作者可在其中扮演服務協調與創新的角色，而使得未來社會工作教育可能會進一步強調夥伴關係和社會創新等等價值與概念。我們認為本文也提出一些未來研究的可能性，認為未來可以更進一步強化社會政策與社會工作之間的連結，並將台灣的社會工作專業體系置於國際比較的脈絡中。

This article aims to identify linkages between social policy and social work. Over the past few decades in Taiwan, social workers and social work educators have emerged as formal professions. However, the relationship between social policy and social work is often ignored, particularly how social work (education) is developed and shaped by social policy. This is because in the process of professionalization and specialization, social policy and social work are treated independently, and the linkage between them goes unacknowledged. Social work studies often focus on micro-level social work practices and methods, and social work is rarely seen as a type of policy model or regime at the institutional level. As a result, social work is often regarded as single undifferentiated policy model, with social work systems and education presented as identical across the world. However, a growing number of comparative studies have identified significant cross-national variations in national social work systems due to idiosyncratic historical, cultural and political economic contexts. This raises the need for additional research on comparative social work systems. In this study, we argue that the key to studying the linkage between social policy and social work is using models of governance to analyze and understand how social work systems are developed and understood. Models of social policy governance influence how social work is practiced and how social work curricula are designed.
The remainder of this study is structured as follows: Section two focuses on how hierarchical governance and new public management shapes social policy and social work systems. Section three examines the impact of new public governance on social investment for social work systems. Finally, section four summarises the influence of various models of social policy governance on the development of social work systems, and propose issues for future research.
We identify three stages of welfare state development. In the Golden Age of the welfare state, the logic of social administration underpins the model of social policy governance and broader hierarchical governance. The rights and obligations of welfare benefits as well as social work practices were legislatively regulated, along with the relationship between social workers and their clients, resulting in the professionalization of social work. In this stage, client assessments and treatments were be regulated to discipline client behavior and attitudes. However, with the neoliberalism of the Thatcher and Reagan governments, respectively in the UK and the USA, the welfare state shifted towards a workfare state, and the models of social policy governance shifted to a new public management paradigm. The welfare state discursively began to emphasize the role of the market in welfare provision, stressing values such as efficiency and choice, and embedding a managerialist approach in social policy governance. Social work practices and education were therefore transformed, and social workers were/are often regarded and trained as case managers, emphasizing concepts such as case management, choice, empowerment and enablement. Moreover, the relationship between social workers and clients was also transformed into a “manager-consumer” duality, in which the rights and obligations of welfare benefits are regulated by contracts and market mechanisms. This transformed the role of the client into that of the consumer. Third, after 2000, the emergence of social investment concepts has driven the emergence of a new approach to public governance in response to new social risks and the complexities of social problems, raising multiple obstacles to clients accessing welfare benefits. This new public governance pushes concepts of co-production and network governance to cope with social complexities and the emergence of new social risks. This has naturally changed the role of social workers in the provision of welfare provisions from case managers into coordinators of resources and services and policy innovators. The role of welfare beneficiaries is neither client nor consumer, but rather a stakeholder in the coordination and innovation of welfare provisions.
In this study, we show that social work practices and education are not identical but are rather shaped by social policy governance and political economic contexts. We compare three models of social policy governance in terms of how social work practices and education are shaped, and propose issues for future research. First, additional attention should focus on the linkage between social policy and social work to provide a better understanding of the development of social work and social work education. Second, the development of social work in Taiwan should be examined in comparison to international practices.