Afficher la notice abrégée

dc.contributor.editorMeagher, Gabrielle
dc.contributor.editorPerche, Diana
dc.contributor.editorStebbing, Adam
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-26T04:05:07Z
dc.date.available2022-10-26T04:05:07Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.date.submitted2022-10-25T10:30:57Z
dc.identifierONIX_20221025_9781760465322_7
dc.identifierOCN: 1346260201
dc.identifierhttps://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/59056
dc.identifier.urihttps://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/93331
dc.description.abstractGovernments of both right and left have been introducing market logics and instruments into Australian social services in recent decades. Their stated goals include reducing costs, increasing service diversity and, in some sectors, empowering consumers. This collection presents a set of original case studies of marketisation in social services as diverse as family day care, refugee settlement, employment services in remote communities, disability support, residential aged care, housing and retirement incomes. Contributors examine how governments have designed these markets, how they work, and their outcomes, with a focus on how risks and benefits are distributed between governments, providers and service users. Their analyses show that inefficiency, low‑quality services and inequitable access are typical problems. Avoiding simplistic explanations that attribute these problems to either a few 'bad apple' service providers or an amorphous neoliberalism that is the sum of all negative developments in recent years, the collection demonstrates the diversity of market models and examines how specific market designs make social service provision susceptible to particular problems. The evidence presented in this collection suggests that Australian governments’ market-making policies have produced fragile and fragmented service systems, in which the risks of rent-seeking, resource leakage and regulatory capture are high. Yet the design of social service markets and their implementation are largely under political control. Consequently, if governments choose to work with market instruments, they need to do so differently, working with principles and practices that drive up both quality and equality.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.rightsopen access
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JK Social services and welfare, criminology::JKS Social welfare and social servicesen_US
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JP Politics and government::JPP Public administrationen_US
dc.subject.otherMarketisation
dc.subject.otherprivatisation
dc.subject.otherregulation
dc.subject.otherAustralian public policy
dc.subject.otherSocial services
dc.subject.otherthema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JK Social services and welfare, criminology::JKS Social welfare and social services
dc.subject.otherthema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JP Politics and government::JPP Public administration
dc.titleDesigning Social Service Markets
dc.title.alternativeRisk, Regulation and Rent-Seeking
dc.typebook
oapen.identifier.doi10.22459/DSSM.2022
oapen.relation.isPublishedBy975ba519-3ce2-4517-95bf-b847729fbcf1
oapen.relation.isbn9781760465322
oapen.relation.isbn9781760465315
oapen.imprintANU Press
oapen.pages438
oapen.place.publicationCanberra


Fichier(s) constituant ce document

FichiersTailleFormatVue

Il n'y a pas de fichiers associés à ce document.

Ce document figure dans la(les) collection(s) suivante(s)

Afficher la notice abrégée

open access
Excepté là où spécifié autrement, la license de ce document est décrite en tant que open access