Better with less: (Re)governmentalizing the government of childhood

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the discursive rationalities shaping Irish child policy, with a particular focus on the rationality of “better with less” and its association with an intensified focus on the early years. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis there was a shift towards universal provision of early years services as part of the better with less agenda – the paper critically examines the assumptions which shaped this policy reform. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on analysis of the texts of the two national child policy plans produced to date in Ireland – The Children, Their Lives 2000–2010 and Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures 2014–2020. Findings Ireland adopted its first national children’s strategy The Children, Their Lives in 2000, associated with an initial shift to a more technocratic, investment-oriented approach to policy making. The emphasis on economic returns is more strongly evident in the successor adopted in 2014. Informed by the “better with less” agenda Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures has a strong focus on early years provision as offering the most significant potential for returns, particularly in relation to “disadvantaged” children. This position not only objectifies children but is associated with a set of assumptions about the nature of “disadvantage” and those affected by it which ignores the wider context of unequal social, political and economic relations. Originality/value National children’s strategies have not been explicitly looked at previously as a form of governmentalization of government and there has been limited analysis to date in Ireland or elsewhere of the better with less agenda in the context of child policy, gaps which this paper seeks to address.

State Support for Households with Children in COVID 19 Conditions: Comparative Analysis

“…For example, a number of authors note high rates of poverty among single-parent families in Australia, Finland, Germany, and the UK, because existing measures simply reimburse costs, but do not affect poverty reduction [8]. K. Smith notes that after the global financial crisis, nation-states began to revise their policies in relation to supporting families and children, focusing on ensuring the early years, as it offers the most significant potential for profit, especially in relation to "disadvantaged" children [9] Hard economic policies have influenced government support systems in other European countries. Lindberg, M., Nygård, M. and Nyqvist, F. note that in Finland in recent years sluggish growth, high unemployment and periodic austerity measures have gradually eroded the economic security of families, especially among single-parent families and large families, and this has put families into growing tensions and increased the risks of poverty, inequality and other forms of disadvantage [10].…”

Governing resettlement: Interrogating tensions and contradictions around age, vulnerability, and integrate-ability in the Irish context

“…In Ireland, as in the wider European context, the ‘social investment’ imperative of neoliberal rationality - oriented towards individual and social returns from ‘human capital’ - is a guiding tenet of economic and social policy. While cultivation of human capital is represented as a ‘life-long’ project, the greatest returns are assumed to accrue from earlier investment, particularly in ‘the disadvantaged’, with the promise of future gains in productivity, an end to intergenerational poverty, and, correspondingly, reduced social expenditure (Smith, 2019). This kind of policy-logic was evident in the perspective on integration expressed by a government official interviewed for this study, who argued that “getting it right” in respect of education could significantly enhance “capacity for our workforce” and support “real integration”.…”

After the Reforms: An Analysis of the Factors Associated with the Use of Legal Services in Child Welfare Proceedings in Ireland

“…In reforming the public sector in Ireland, innovative efforts were made to "renew" the civil/public service, while having vision and asking bold questions so as to established greater accountability for decision making, a new management and accountability regime. While Ireland had been a laggard with respect to NPM, the reforms implemented aim to improve efficiency and performance and do "better with less" (Smith, 2019). The reforms go beyond the dated New Public Management (NPM) type reforms towards the hybrid post-New Public Management model of reform.…”

“…Furthermore, reforming the delivery of public services rests on quite a deep and often implicit assumption with regards to the relationship between the State and its citizens (McKevitt and Lawton, 1994). These sentiments are central when considering the Irish child protection system in light of child abuse scandals and revelations regarding poor practices (see Buckley and Burns (2015) and Smith (2019) for a detailed account of Child Welfare and Protection in Ireland). In the context of public sector reform post-2008, and a "do better with less" approach (Smith, 2019), child policies have become increasingly results driven, and the policy agenda appears to have shifted to a universal approach to the provision of early years services.…”

“…In the context of public sector reform post-2008, and a "do better with less" approach (Smith, 2019), child policies have become increasingly results driven, and the policy agenda appears to have shifted to a universal approach to the provision of early years services. The economic rationale behind spending/investment in early years is that it yields benefits in the future in the form of better health, higher educational attainment and lower anti-social behavior (Smith, 2019).…”