The focus of this article is upon the recent revival of interest in human agency within both sociological and social policy debates. There is a striking resonance between the increasing attention paid to individual behaviour within normative debates about welfare and the concern of some sociologists with the moral and ethical dilemmas that confront the individual in contemporary society. These two sets of arguments are not compatible. Indeed the analyses they present are contradictory. Moralists such as Etzioni, Field and Mead share a belief in the need to restructure welfare in ways that encourage and reward responsible behaviour. In contrast, sociologists such as Bauman, Beck and Giddens suggest that such endeavours could prove to be both futile and dangerous.Attempts to address issues of agency face formidable obstacles and arouse genuine fears that they will serve to endorse a punitive and atavistic individualism. It is these fears, however, which have constrained and confined the debate about welfare in the post-war years. The revival of agency creates opportunities for a social science which is more sensitive to the activities of poor people whilst reflecting more fully the difference and diversity which characterises contemporary British society.

No abstract

English This article assesses how far New Labour thinking about welfare reform has been influenced by ideas and developments in the United States. Having entered office declaring its determination to ‘think the unthinkable’, the Blair administration has subsequently been in earnest pursuit of the workable. It has looked to the US for ideas about wage supplementation and- especially- welfare to work programmes. More broadly, the language in which these policies are presented and justified has drawn heavily upon that of US politicians and commentators. The article discusses the extent and the significance of this ‘Americanisation’ of the welfare debate. It argues that its most important consequence has been to sustain and enhance a moralism which is common to New Labour and Thatcherism, but distrusted by both ‘One Nation’ conservatism and ‘Old Labour’ social democracy.

No abstract

No abstract