Philip Mendes

Many social policy texts examine specific social policy debates at a point in time and offer mostly technical interpretations of why existing or amended policies and programs have worked or not worked. In contrast, this text presents a comprehensive historical and political analysis of four policy areas where reform was achieved after many years of neglect. Using a rich corpus of primary and secondary data, this is the first ever time that these four cases – covering discrete policy debates around young people transitioning from out-of-home care, medically supervised injecting facilities, social security payments for the unemployed, and compulsory income management – have been compared within an organized framework. For each of these policy areas, author Philip Mendes presents the long-term chronology of the public policy debates, the key arguments and evidence presented by researchers and advocacy groups in favour of policy reform, the strategies used by policy advocates, and the contrary arguments presented by governments and other bodies, as well as other factors which may have hindered or enabled policy change. Chronicling these cases where long-standing research evidence in favour of practice and policy reform suddenly achieved implementation and political impact when evidence finally trumped ideology, author Philip Mendes also describes the improved outcomes for disadvantaged groups and the wider community. Arguing that governments should introduce policy development processes and networks that include active engagement with knowledge from domestic and global research studies, this is critical reading for scholars and policymakers internationally on the dynamics of policy initiatives, outcomes and reform.

More than a decade on from their conception, this book reflects on the consequences of income management policies in Australia and New Zealand. Drawing on a three-year study, it explores the lived experience of those for whom core welfare benefits and services are dependent on government conceptions of ‘responsible’ behaviour. It analyses whether officially claimed positive intentions and benefits of the schemes are outweighed by negative impacts that deepen the poverty and stigma of marginalised and disadvantaged groups. This novel study considers the future of this form of welfare conditionality and addresses wider questions of fairness and social justice.

This book explores the tensions between the competing social rights and social control functions of the modern Australian welfare state. By critically examining the history and rhetoric of the Australian welfare state from 1972 to the present day, and using the author’s long-standing research on the Australian Council of Social Service and other welfare advocacy groups, it analyses the transformation from rights-based to conditional welfare.The Labor Party Government from 1972-75 is identified as the only clear cut example of Australia positively using welfare payments and services as an instrument to promote greater social equity, inclusion and participation. Since the mid-1970s, the Australian welfare state has gradually retreated from the social rights agenda conceived by the Whitlam Government. Australia has followed other Anglo-Saxon countries in adopting increasingly conditional and paternalistic measures that undermine the protection of social citizenship outside the labour market. In contrast, this text makes the case for an alternative participatory and decentralized welfare state model that would prioritize social care by empowering and supporting welfare service users at a local community level.This book will be of interest to academics, students and policy-makers working within social policy, social work and political sociology.

This book explores the tensions between the competing social rights and social control functions of the modern Australian welfare state. By critically examining the history and rhetoric of the Australian welfare state from 1972 to the present day, and using the author’s long-standing research on the Australian Council of Social Service and other welfare advocacy groups, it analyses the transformation from rights-based to conditional welfare.The Labor Party Government from 1972-75 is identified as the only clear cut example of Australia positively using welfare payments and services as an instrument to promote greater social equity, inclusion and participation. Since the mid-1970s, the Australian welfare state has gradually retreated from the social rights agenda conceived by the Whitlam Government. Australia has followed other Anglo-Saxon countries in adopting increasingly conditional and paternalistic measures that undermine the protection of social citizenship outside the labour market. In contrast, this text makes the case for an alternative participatory and decentralized welfare state model that would prioritize social care by empowering and supporting welfare service users at a local community level.This book will be of interest to academics, students and policy-makers working within social policy, social work and political sociology.

In this fully revised third edition of Australia’s Welfare Wars, Philip Mendes questions many of the key values and assumptions that determine contemporary social welfare policies, and the factors and forces that shape these policies in Australia.Rather than concentrating on the history of the welfare state, or the process of making social policy, Mendes examines welfare politics in Australia from a broad political perspective, exploring the role played by key socio-economic players and their respective ideologies in the political struggles around welfare. The book looks closely at:the influence of ideas and ideologies – such as neoliberalism, laborism, social democracy and social investment – on the welfare statehow different local interest and lobby groups influence welfare policythe significant impact of economic globalisation, and global social policy trends, on Australian welfare policy debates.

This is the first progressive book to argue that the BDS movement (boycott, divestment and sanctions) is the wrong way to broker peace in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.The BDS movement against Israel has gained traction and publicity worldwide. Yet here, Philip Mendes and Nick Dyrenfurth – politically progressive commentators – argue that BDS is too blunt an instrument to use in a such a complex situation. Instead, they propose a solution that supports Israel’s existence and Palestinian rights to a homeland, urging mutual compromise and concessions from both sides.

This represents a substantial revision of Philip Mendes' successful textbook ""Australia's Welfare Wars"", in which the author explains - and questions - many of the values and assumptions that underpin contemporary social welfare policies. In particular, the book is critical of the Neo-liberal or Economic rationalist ideas that now dominate the welfare debates in Australia and overseas, and instead demonstrates and reaffirms the ongoing relevance of social-democratic and welfare-state ideals.

The first study to comprehensively examine the role played by ACOSS in the Australian social policy debate; The implications of Australian welfare state debates and agendas for other advanced welfare states. The Australian welfare lobby group -- the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) -- has played a central role in the welfare politics debate as the foremost defender of the Australian welfare state. ACOSS is widely recognised as one of the most important lobby groups in Australia, and enjoys regular access to the media and key policy makers in government and the bureaucracy. Relevant case studies and source material are used to draw attention to: The role that interest groups play in the formation of government policy agendas; The lobbying strategies used by welfare advocacy groups to influence welfare state outcomes; The relationship between the welfare sector and other key lobby groups and political parties; The impact of key contemporary influences such as neo-liberalism and economic globalisation which have arguably transformed the political context within which welfare advocacy groups operate.