Content uploaded by Lewis Richard Elward
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lewis Richard Elward on Dec 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Corporate Welfare Crime: Two Case Studies in State-Corporate Harm.
Introduction and Methodology.
This dissertation examines the neoliberal welfare state, where privatisation has transformed
welfare recipients into the ‘consumers’, ‘customers’ and ‘commodities’ required for profit
generation and maximisation. The social harm perspective provides the necessary
framework to conceptualise such processes, as its broader investigative scope better
explains the mechanisms of harm production and relocates harm as crime (Kleinig, 1978).
Society’s focus on crime, individualisation and redress serves to maintain social relations,
while providing the necessary guise for elites to dismiss the many structural inadequacies
which contribute to crime. This dissertation also highlights how the harms inflicted by
powerful actors outweigh traditional notions of crime, and how the colluding forces of power
maintain current formats to aid their interests. Harm perspectives are applied to expose the
corporate-political powers within contemporary welfare structures that contribute to human
anguish (Hillyard and Tombs, 2004).
Moreover, this dissertation argues that corporations are criminogenic by nature,
largely due to their organisational cultures, the pressures of capitalism and the passive legal
and political structures which fail to reprimand business for their deviant acts (Apel and
Paternoster, 2009). Furthermore, the dissertation highlights how corporations dominate all
aspects of contemporary life, and also shows how their all-encompassing characteristics
leave all citizens susceptible to harm – especially welfare dependants. Corporations are
unable to conduct business without breaking laws and inflicting harm, and for this reason,
this dissertation argues that it is irresponsible for the state to subject vulnerable people to
corporate control. Any acknowledgment of contemporary corporate dominance must be
viewed against the backdrop of the state-corporate relationship. It is discussed how the state
and business act in collusion, as both generally share the same neoliberal conviction on how
society should function. This partnership is no more evident than within welfare, where the
state have established proxy measures to outsource harm production to distance
themselves from potential ramifications: This is central to the discussion, and social harm
theory has been applied throughout to make it clear that the state and corporations collude
to create and maintain harmful welfare systems. This dissertation also details how austerity
is undermining service quality through unprecedented cuts and by creating exploitative
working conditions. This occurs while the state ascribes ‘mock regulation’ of services- such
as the Care Quality Commission (CQC) (for example) - which attempts to control
corporations while the state simultaneously provide the context for profit generation (Tombs
and Whyte, 2015).
1
A case study approach to investigate social harms within welfare services was
adopted for this dissertation. This enables a concentrated analysis of topics due to the detail
and high level of credibility they provide. Theoretical content, in this case zemiology (the
study of social harm), can also be applied to real life processes via the case study approach.
The ability to theorise contemporary welfare is essential for the quality of the research and
the outcomes it wishes to provide – as well as adding to the existing literature on the subject
matter. The case study approach is a good method for modest research with limited
resources. This is because case studies as a research method are often viewed as lacking
objectivity and rigour, in comparison to other social research methods. However, despite
such criticism, case studies are widely used as they offer insights which may not be
achieved through different avenues. The most challenging aspect of adopting a case study
approach has been lifting the investigation from a mere descriptive account, into a piece of
credible research which can contribute to existing knowledge and literature (Rowley, 2002).
This dissertation has used case studies to attempt to make sense of the wide array of
secondary data considered for this piece. It could be argued that the criteria for source
selection has hindered the research, because the values of the author may appear biased
towards those without a voice1. The dissertation provides contrasting accounts through the
case study approach, because analysis of different forms of harm production was required to
view how such mechanisms compare and contrast. Two case studies are provided to
explore the structuring of harm in welfare services. The first applies zemiology to elderly
social care, where outsourcing has institutionalised harm through poorly resourced labour
processes. Current formats undermine human, welfare and labour rights, as care
corporations seek to maximise returns in a deteriorating sector (Domingos, 2014; Krajewski,
2014). The second case study uses zemiology to examine the Work Programme (WP). The
state’s demonization of the non-working population can be construed as the mass
organisation of mental distress, as societies most vulnerable are systematically targeted to
enhance control and compliance. Enhanced conditionality is geared towards punishment
rather than support, and the harms inflicted by the WP are unprecedented in the welfare
1 However, it is arguably impossible to conduct value-free research, and such values are not
aimed at constructing bias, but to provide an account of the harmful reality for those being
subject to the control of welfare corporations (Becker, 1967). Such angles are rarely
explored in mainstream media. Thus, the author felt that case studies were the best way to
conceptualise the welfare mechanisms which will likely effect citizens at some point
throughout their lives. This however, is not without its problems and critics could feel this
research presents a crisis of representation, as the author has not conducted the research
from the standpoint of service users, but of a person in a privileged position. The secondary
data used may also have such bias because authors will probably not know first-hand what
life is like at the doors of destitution (Packer, 2011).
2
setting (Slater, 2012). The ideologies and processes driving the rise in illnesses, and
mortality (many by suicide) are questioned, as the dissertation draws attention to how the
state’s insistence of implementing corporate facilitated welfare could be deemed state crime
by proxy (SCBP).
This dissertation provides an examination of the unprecedented levels of harm
produced by neoliberal welfare arrangements. The evidence shown will highlight why
resistance must occur to prevent further corporate participation in service delivery, because
the needs and rights of service users are neglected in favour of the needs of capital.
Contemporary welfare arrangements only serve the very corporations who disregard the
humanistic consequences of their endeavours. All people have innate dignity, compassion
and self-respect and are more than mere corporate commodities. This dissertation argues
that citizenship rights must be upheld in order to prevent the scale of harms currently
dogging contemporary welfare.
Chapter 1.
3
Corporate Crime, Social Harm and the Welfare State.
The neoliberal welfare state: the shifting relationship between the state and private
sector, creating opportunities for corporate involvement.
The welfare state’s origins lie within the Beveridge Report (1942) which provided the Atlee
administration the blueprint to introduce modern welfare, which operated in concomitance
with Keynesianism. This consensus endured until the mid-1970s, where monetarist
economic strategies to reduce state expenditure and privatise welfare were introduced
(Lavalette and Penketh, 2003). The new right’s position condemned public welfare, and
liberalisation and market forces became the overriding sentiment (Nash, 2010). The market,
traditionally presented as the creator of social problems was recast to cure these ills, as
political discourse was shaped to align with “pro-business” agendas (Block, 1987; Beresford,
2005). Costs were transferred from the state to individuals and markets were freed from red
tape as private capital infiltrated welfare (Gamble, 2001). New Labour pursued similar ideals,
as modernization rested on assumption’s that remaining politically popular depended on
committing to welfares neoliberal conviction (Hay and Watson, 1999). Even with New
Labour’s continuation of neoliberalism, few foresaw Cameron’s welfare revolution which
aimed to dismantle the post-war consensus. The 2007/8 banking crisis presented the
opportunity to shift the debate from market failure to public services crisis, resulting in
expanded corporate involvement in welfare (Tyler, 2013; Farnsworth, 2015). The
government successfully re-packaged private debt into public debt, shifted corporate
recklessness into public profligacy, meanwhile recasting corporations as the only route to
economic recovery (Tombs and Whyte, 2015). Welfare neoliberalization has exposed service
users to numerous harms as corporations continually fail to deliver up-to-standard services
(Holden, 2012). Corporate involvement in welfare has sat comfortably within neoliberal
economic developments and UK social policy over the last 30 to 40 years. However, this
dissertation is concerned with the harm produced by corporations as they carry out their
functions in delivering public services. The following section details the yardstick by which
we can measure harm in the hope to potentially develop a means of conceptualising the
injurious nature of corporate welfare delivery.
The social construction of crime and social harm.
Crime is a contested notion as its meaning differs across space and time (Deflem, 2015).
Hulsman calls crimes ‘problematic situations’ because they occur in varying forms for
differing reasons, meaning that many issues are dealt with under the crime banner. The term
‘crime’ invokes seriousness, although the majority of defined crimes are minor, most cause
little physical or financial harm, and they are predominantly victimless, therefore standard
4
responses of punishment cannot be assumed effective (1986). Clarity is needed over events
defined as crime and criminal justice processes. Crimes are ranked in terms of seriousness
through varying degrees of punishments enforced by the state, with the aim of inflicting
suffering, and where the prison sentence is the ultimate symbol (Hillyard and Tombs,2004;
Pollock, 2014).
Although the state is not the sole definer of social problems, it largely shapes and
defines many social issues before dictating the legal and social solutions to maintain existing
social relations (Barton et al, 2007). Although the Criminal Justice System (CJS) has the
capability to reprimand illicit state-corporate actions, it neglects such activities to concentrate
on individual acts. By focussing on individuals, the structures contributing to harm such as
social deprivation, poverty and inequality can be concealed (Hillyard and Tombs, 2004).
‘Pyrrhic defeat theory’ claims that the social reality of crime is established and reproduced
through policy and the CJS, which preserves ‘the implicit identification of crime with the
dangerous acts of the poor’ (Reiman, 1998: 61). This brief explanation shows how the
present legal system devotes more time and resources for punishing working class crimes,
while highlighting the system’s neglect of the more harmful crimes of the powerful.
Crime and criminal justice distort crime and harm in society because the focus on
individual ‘criminals’ has generated fear over one type of harm while sustaining the
precedence of crime (Barkan and Bryjak, 2011). The study of zemiology however, allows
wider investigative scopes into what or who may be responsible for harm production, whilst
being unrestricted by the narrow confines of criminal justice (Hillyard and Tombs, 2007). The
concept of harm does not arouse the same ‘organised public resentment’ to that of crime,
and criminalisation processes are directed towards lower-class offenders, while powerful
actors continually evade culpability (Croall, 2001). Zemiological perspectives allow
investigation from a starting-point which permits the development of more effective methods
of harm prevention, rather than continuing the fixation on the punishment of crime. This
would arguably surpass current criminal justice procedures, where many negative
consequences emerge through separating crime from harm. The focus on criminal acts
promotes biased and distorted views of the extent and nature of the harms people endure.
This aids the consensus of criminalisation, and neglects more dangerous and damaging
forms of harm, whereas zemiological approaches could potentially be emancipatory and
proactive. There is little doubt that the excessive attention allocated to events defined as
crime not only deflects attention from serious harms, but largely excludes them (Hillyard and
Tombs, 2004; Ward, 2004).
5
The marked benefit of zemiology is its basis for developing more precise analysis of
what will likely harm people throughout their lives. For example, it defines physical harms,
including early death or injury through an array of circumstances such as, work-related
accidents, insufficient food and shelter, brutality, even democide, as well as encompassing
financial/economic harms, where poverty and diverse forms of property and capital loss
would be incorporated. Further, zemiological perspectives consider frauds differing domains,
including mortgage and pension mis-selling, the mis-appropriation of state funds to private
individuals or corporations, price-fixing and cartelisation, and wealth redistribution via
regressive taxation and welfare policies. Expanding the scale of economic or financial harms
necessitates recognising the many personal and social impacts of poverty, unemployment,
etc. (Hillyard and Tombs, 2004; Beninger and Francis, 2015). These factors highlight aspects
of zemiology which would enable deeper understandings towards mechanisms contributing
to harm production.
Social harm is a contested term (Pemberton, 2015), and definitions are generally split
into two categories. The first draws upon legal frameworks (normally human rights) which
expands ‘crime’ to include forms of structural oppression (Schwendinger and Schwendinger,
1975). However, legal discourses pose problems, as the instruments needed to map state
induced harms derive from state systems, limiting objective analysis. Therefore, the
separation of measuring harm production from sites of state power is pivotal in generating
more comprehensive and objective definitions (Pantazis and Pemberton, 2009). The second
category considers sociological understandings of harm. For example, Munchie (2000)
attempts to deconstruct harm to establish typologies that encompass positive and negative
emotions. Whereas Hillyard and Tombs (2004) categorise harm in regard to economic,
physical, psychological, sexual and cultural safety. Defining harm is both positive and
productive – more so than tip-toeing around fields of inquiry demarcated by government
through law. A social harm approach is partially defined in its operationalisation, which
requires the consideration of the nature and relative impacts of harms and people’s
expressions or perceptions of what those harms constitute. Therefore, the field is partly
defined through people’s attitudes, understandings, experiences and perceptions, instead of
pre-ordinated state instruction (Hillyard and Tombs, 2007).
This section has shown how the zemiological perspective has many potential
benefits for government, however, its adoption would simultaneously expose their current
failings. Zemiology requires well-defined attention to political responsibility, and warrants the
politicisation of topics to exact debates over national policy, priorities and resources, which
makes it obvious why government feel it appropriate to limit such debates to the closed
corridors of power. This is why considerations of the scale of harms must be understood with
6
regard to political imperatives and the economics behind the neoliberal paradigm (Tombs
and Hillyard, 2004, 2007; Mason, 2008). Moreover, attention has been given to how
zemiology would broaden the CJS purview, and provide better understandings towards the
mechanisms inflicting harm. This would develop further knowledge over what will likely effect
people throughout their lifespan and would benefit contemporary society, where corporations
dominate every aspect of life and are the largest producers of harm (Benn et al, 2014; Butts,
2003). The following section highlights the importance of applying zemiological approaches
to corporate practices to show how legal, and political processes are designed to serve
corporate interests’. The section exemplifies differing domains of corporate crime and argues
that because corporate actions harm all citizens, especially those who depend on welfare
services, that the term ‘crimes against citizens’ is more fitting to explain corporate deviance.
Corporate crime.
Corporate responsibility is a myth and in their current form, corporations are allowed and
encouraged to systematically steal, maim, and kill for profit. Through law and politics,
corporations are constructed in ways which motivate harm production and law-breaking
(Tombs and Whyte, 2015). This is because competition within capitalist markets make it
foolhardy for corporations to undertake profit-minimising moral responsibilities unless the law
mandates them to do so (Michalowski and Kramer, 2006). This is sustained through legal
obligations and reinforced through the courts which stipulate that corporations must legally
maximise profits for stakeholders (Mitchell, 2001). Corporate crime occurs because of the
growth in opportunities to amass profits offered by deregulated economic systems (Tombs
and Whyte, 2015).
Corporations by design combine wealth into one entity to collectively absorb
responsibility. This formats primary advantage is the concept of ‘corporate personhood’,
which removes human content from corporate activity and creates the principle of limited
liability. This allows investors to not pay for financial losses or damages, which limits losses
when social costs of business are high (Glasbeek, 2013; Tombs and Whyte, 2015).
Sutherland’s (1949) differential association theory provides a social psychological
perspective which aims to identify processes leading to deviance, particularly how the law,
and corporations protect identities making actors more inclined to deviance. Although this
theory helps explain some corporate crime facets, organisational theory is arguably a better
conceptualisation, as it argues that corporations are criminogenic because of defective
operating procedures and their goal orientated emphasis (Gross, 1978). Gross claims that,
for a number of reasons, “there is built into the very structure of organisations an inherent
inducement for the organization itself to engage in crime” (1978: 56). The guise of ‘corporate
7
personhood’ enables enhanced rights within law, as criminal justice processes seemingly
bend to ensure actors are rarely held accountable (Tombs and Whyte, 2015).
Once corporate crimes have commenced, corporations are generally not obliged to
foot the costs. Costs associated with damages and long-term harms are branded
‘externalities’ because stakeholders are only liable for fractions of the costs- if any- because
the majority of these costs are either socialised (for example cost to the NHS) or borne by
individuals (Tombs and Whyte, 2015). This is why Bakan (2004) uses the term ‘externalising
machines’, as corporations largely elude liability for their actions. These factors are woven
into the fabric of the corporate-legal form, and as such this construction is ultimately lodged
in the laws failure to rectify the resoluble problem of capitalism: i.e. how to credibly claim the
law propounds social protection, whilst simultaneously providing the infrastructure which
enables harmful profit generation. The corporations ‘citizen’ status- endowed through law-
consolidates capitalism as part of individualism and class-based law. Crime and harm are
not insignificant aspects of corporate activity. The nature of ‘corporate personhood’
dislocates the responsibility that can be ascribed to corporations, which contributes to their
standing as powerful, all-encompassing entities that dominate all aspects of contemporary
life. In essence, the corporate need for profit makes them violent, rapacious and
systematically criminal, and for these reasons cannot be subdued (Tombs and Whyte, 2015).
Thus far, this section has shown how corporations have privileged positions within
law that enables them to act illicitly. The criminal avenues that corporations venture affect all
citizens in varying ways. To help conceptualise the scope of corporate crimes, Tombs and
Whyte categorised them into four dominant areas. These categories are: 1) Corporate crime
against consumers. 2) Corporate crimes against workers. 3) Corporate crimes against the
environment. 4) Corporate theft and fraud. These kinds of cases are largely immune from
prosecution due to the legal processes which render them so. However, the examples given
are technically ‘punishable’, therefore should be criminalized (2015). As corporate crime
operates on such a massive scale, this dissertation only exemplifies a few cases, and
environmental crimes are omitted as they are beyond the scope of this dissertation.
The first category of interest is crimes against workers, which includes: wage
violations, discrimination, safety and occupational offences, attacks on collective
organisation, breaches of data protection and human rights (Whyte, 2015). Austerity has
produced extensive exploitation and diminishing employment rights, and the combination of
deficit cuts and privatisation have caused waves of public sector redundancies (Chaston,
2012). The introduction of the Superannuation Act (2010) reduced redundancy benefits, as
amendments to redundancy consultation law mean that employers only engage with workers
8
and trade unions for 45 days, rather than 90 (Ludlow, 2015). Public sector workers fortunate
enough to escape redundancy have had pay freezes below inflation rates, only rising in 2016
by a mere 1%, effecting 2.5 million workers. Some public servants have endured a 15% real
terms pay reduction since 2010 as the state attempts to abolish “progression pay” (Stone,
2015; Watts, 2014; Syal, 2016). The weakening of redundancy laws, alongside the attacks
on the minimum wage debases any notion of social justice, which is no more evident than in
the WP.
Part of the WP is the apprenticeship scheme, where the state pay businesses £2.65
an hour for employing apprentices (Peacock, 2010). Rather than having the desired effect of
training and development, it has turned into an exploitative opportunity (Lee, 2015). This
scheme has been met with open arms by businesses such as Homebase and Poundland,
who frequently advertise for unskilled positons where ‘apprentices’ find themselves
conducting the same duties as their colleagues for a fraction of the wage (Williams and
Scott, 2016; Jones et al, 2015). Elsewhere, workers are exposed to further state-corporate
exploitation through measures like the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (2013), which
grants workers the ‘choice’ to forgo their rights to redundancy settlements and unfair
dismissal compensation. Workers are instead offered shares, however they are often of little
value and are overwhelmingly presented as employment conditions (Hughes and Ferrett,
2016; Munro Wright, 2014). Workers in this regard are powerless, especially considering that
factors like tribunal fee increases, reductions in legal aid and the demise of unionisation,
have made it almost impossible for individuals to fight against exploitation (Collins et al,
2012).
Corporate theft and fraud is a category which includes: mergers; takeovers; bribery;
illegal share dealings; tax evasion; and other manifestations of illegal accounting. Elites
inflict misery on the public to enhance socio-economic positions. For instance,
notwithstanding the proliferation of fraudulent activities leading to the 2007/8 recession the
financial sector saw no charges levied at it (Tombs and Whyte, 2015). The derivatives
market remains unregulated as traders continue amassing debt which will inevitably implode
(Pilkington, 2014). The paucity of investigation is striking: In 2013 for example, the Serious
Fraud Office made only 20 prosecutions compared to around 40,000 burglars prosecuted by
the Crown Prosecution Service. This is transparent class based law (Tombs and Whyte,
2015). Welfare corporations are not exempt from committing crime, evidenced in the WP
employment services, where corporations profit from administering work experience and
training for the unemployed.
9
Concerns over WP motives are warranted, considering scandals such as A4e being
found guilty of numerous counts of fraud, only fuel apprehension over this policy’s
appropriateness (Ross, 2016). CEO Emma Harrison’s annual salary was £365,000, and in
2011 she paid herself an additional £8.6 million in share dividends despite her service failing
to hit targets. From 2010-12, A4e received contracts worth upwards of £200 million despite
being investigated for fraud nine times since 2005 (Morrison and Merrick, 2012; Greenhill
and Martin, 2012). Further, between February 2009 and February 2013 nine A4e employees
committed numerous fraud offences, leading to 60 criminal charges, including multiple
counts of forgery, conspiring to defraud, and producing and possessing articles to use in
fraud. Instances of fraud continued to materialise despite legal proceedings as in 2015, six
A4e employees were jailed for their part in fraud which saw them claim nearly £300,000.
These employees conjured up files, forged signatures, created 167 false claims and
deceitfully claimed they helped jobseekers find employment (BBC News, 2015). This raises
questions over the corporation’s ability to legally provide services when opportunities to
commit theft and fraud are so accessible. The ethics of profit motives within such services
are questionable, especially when they claim to aid societies disadvantaged.
The final category of interest to this dissertation is corporate crimes against
consumers. This includes: selling unfit goods, illegal sales/marketing practices, false/illegal
labelling, and conspiracies to fix prices and/or carve up market share (Tombs and Whyte,
2015). However, this dissertation contends the term ‘corporate crimes against consumers’
should be resisted, because ‘corporate crimes against citizens’ is arguably better to
conceptualise the overall argument. The state and corporations use highly-sophisticated
strategies that are supported by convoluted ideological rationales, to collaborate in harm
production against citizens using certain public services. Therefore, corporate crime against
citizens not only reflects the impacts of neoliberalism, but is a way of understanding how
corporations exploit citizens for profitable ends. Neoliberalism claims that markets present
greater choice, however, current welfare processes relocate citizens as consumers of
services they have no choice in selecting, which are resourced through taxation which they
have no choice in paying (Sayer and Wilkinson, 2016; McDonald and Wearing, 2013). This
contradicts market rule and the freedom professed by neoliberals. The harms produced by
marketization are arguably crimes against citizens. Under the guise of austerity, corporations
reduced labour and welfare rights, while assaulting human, political and civil rights - creating
an unattainable environment for a functioning democracy (Domingos, 2014; Krajewski,
2014). Tombs and Whyte’s (2015) categorisation of corporate crime breaks down ways that
corporations inflict harm. However, crimes against citizens is arguably better to identify
corporate criminogenic potential. This dissertation hopes to have highlighted that: directly or
10
indirectly, corporate profit generation exposes all citizens- especially the most vulnerable- to
harm.
This section has highlighted specific corporate crimes and their impacts.
Furthermore, the argument was put forward that the term ‘crimes against citizens’ portrays a
better, more fitting way to conceptualise the extent and scale of the harms corporations inflict
upon society. This section has shown how the CJS serves to maintain power relations, by
focusing on lower level crimes negating attention from structural inadequacies. By
highlighting CJS failures in reprimanding contributors of mass harm, the dissertation hopes
to have highlighted the state’s role in maintaining capitalisms interests. A driving factor into
the continuation of corporate crimes is the lack of political will to initiate substantial
regulatory bodies to monitor such activities, thus any acknowledgement of corporate crime
can only proceed with greater understanding of the state’s role in manufacturing it
(Michalowski and Kramer, 2006). The following section aims to further examine how
government and business act in collusion, in order to illuminate the toxicity of this
relationship and gain greater comprehension of why state-corporate harm occurs.
Regulation and the state-corporate partnership.
Neoliberalism has re-cast the state as an impingement on corporate freedoms.
Misconceptions that government and business are opposing entities with separate interests
are common, even though free markets have never existed, nor could they ever exist (Sayer,
1995; Tombs and Whyte, 2015). Markets are unstable, fluctuating systems. Therefore, the
state must act to guarantee the material and political conditions required for capital
accumulation. Markets fail to guarantee, for example, a healthy and educated population
that is fit for labour. The state traditionally guides market developments, but the neoliberal
evolution of capitalism has enhanced the state role, which, it has been argued, indicates that
politics and economy are now indistinguishable: only a political economy remains (Bent,
2016; Lane and Ersson, 2002). Arguably, the state is not an arena of concentrated power,
but an ensemble of processes, and institutions which organise social forces. The state
creates and preserves institutional frameworks to guarantee the quality and rectitude of
capital, as well as the legal structures needed to secure functioning markets, market
conditions, infrastructures and rules for business operations which form the institutional
ordering of society (Harvey, 2005). This means the state can be considered a network of
mechanisms which organises and mediates social relationships of power, and corporations
play a decisive role (Jessop, 1990).
Corporations take form from the rules which govern commodity/labour markets, and
by regulatory laws which establish the economic and social contracts of corporations.
11
Corporations recognise the state’s role and are generally unwilling to subject themselves to
the un-predictability of the market (Pearce, 1976). This highlights how corporations couldn’t
have developed such power or even function as they do without state infrastructure. Thus,
the state and the market cannot be construed as binary opposites, as administrative and
judicial structures position corporations in relation to the state, suggesting that capital can
never be autonomous from government. The state is key in aiding economic enterprise by
specifying rules, liability and incorporation, which are put in place by regulatory agencies
(Tombs and Hillyard, 2004; Sklar, 1988).
The government’s regulatory bodies police corporations, although they are separated
from criminal law. Quantifying the extent of corporate crimes is impossible as they are
predominantly un-investigated or unreported (Whyte, 2007). This occurs because of close
corporate-political relations. The circles of party leadership have largely been replaced by
overlapping networks of consultants, lobbyists and advisors - primarily corporate
representatives seeking favours (Crouch, 2004). Corporations exploit these relationships to
influence definitions of crime, harm, and the nature of regulation through five avenues: 1)
their direct, and organised policy making process interventions; 2) their ability to shape
policy agenda; 3) covert forms of intervention; 4) their influence over ‘non-decision making’;
and 5) their ability to create and maintain their own regulatory conditions (Fooks et al, 2013).
The crimes of powerful actors are typically seen as “regulatory violations,” and are
deemed less serious than “real” crimes, even though the harm they produce greatly exceeds
the financial and physical damage caused by “street” crimes (Russell and Gilbert, 1999;
Gobert and Punch, 2003). Regulatory agencies recognise that key aspects of their positions
is allowing, even encouraging economic progression, and to only intervene in clear cases for
protection. State-corporate relationships are therefore complex and are characterised
theoretically via mutual interdependence. Corporate crime is produced through this symbolic
relationship and restraining corporate crime largely relies on the extent to which this
symbiosis can be broken. It cannot be denied that different categories of corporate crime are
amenable to more or less effective enforcement. However, regulation is fundamentally the
result of social relations of power (Tombs and Whyte, 2009).
Regulation as the link between corporate sectors and the state can be categorised
into three theoretical approaches - a ‘compliance’ school, a neoliberal perspective and
capture theories, each are implied theories of the state’s role (Ward, 2004). Compliance
perspectives dominate advanced economies, as states seek corporate compliance. This is
the normative stance based on recognising business power; an acceptance of constraints of
state resources in regulating corporations; and the state’s consideration to not arouse
12
counter-productivity through punitive enforcement (Pearce and Tombs, 1998; Tombs and
Whyte, 2009). Neoliberal theorists argue that states have interventionist tendencies which
obstruct efficient regulation of economic activity (Tombs and Whyte, 2008). There are also
theories which characterise state regulatory agencies as pregnable to the ‘capture’ of
business - achieved by lobbying, interests of the elite being served in private and public
sectors, and the ‘revolving door’ of private and public personnel. This implies regulation is
counter-productive as it inherently institutionalises corporate influence (Hertz, 2001; Monbiot,
2001). Correlations between these perspectives accentuates how regulation includes state
processes of autonomous agencies intervening against autonomous private organisations.
For compliance theorists, regulatory agencies forge consensuses across antagonistic parties
which are viewed as having mutual interests with an effective business sector. Neoliberals
feel government’s optimal role is withdrawing from social/economic life, only to perform
arbitration roles when market mechanisms have failed, whereas capture theorists
prophesise governments are sites to be dominated, even seized by external, organised and
powerful interests. Despite these differences, the correlation is that the state and
corporations are externally opposite, that is, the state is ontologically separate from civil
society (Tombs and Whyte, 2009).
Lobbying dominates politics, and the volume of private capital within politics raises
scepticism over how politicians and corporate executives can be reliable avenues for
change. Until politicians introduce meaningful legislation, create decent regulatory agencies,
and corporate officials practice ethically, protecting the public from corporate characteristics
is impossible (Kauzlarich and Mathews, 2006). Once public services are ridiculed, and the
pursuit of profit is elevated into human goals, politicians and advisers regard selling their
influence as legitimate facets of political participation. The power that corporate actors
possess has been translated into political power which threatens the democratic balance
(Crouch, 2004). Neo-pluralism recognizes the privileged role of corporations within capitalist
society. Lindblom argued this in three ways: 1) equality of influence is negated by economic
and social inequalities; 2) politicians organise the support of the people; 3) organised interest
groups- particularly businesses- influence society’s direction (1977). This relationship has
enhanced corporate-political privilege under the guise of free competition, and the private
influence over political decisions has extended corporate participation in civil society, as they
are viewed as the “only” way to ameliorate societal problems while providing economic
growth. This results in public sectors being outsourced further, and what follows is the
principle policy recommendation of modern economic orthodoxy: the state is impotent
beyond guaranteeing market freedoms (Farnsworth, 2004; Crouch, 2004; Wiggan, 2011).
13
Thus far, the myth that the state and corporations being binary opposites with
differing interests has been dispelled. The state has positioned regulatory agency power
outside of criminal law to aid capital accumulation while providing the legislation and
infrastructure which breathes life into corporations. Likewise, the section has indicated the
political reliance on corporate funding, and how this threatens the democratic balance.
Corporate donations are viewed as investment opportunities to enhance privileged positions
to collaborate further with the state over policy implementation, and to capitalise on welfare
markets. The following discussion aims to accentuate transnational corporations’ (TNCs)
role, and the influence they possess within international regulatory institutions and
‘supragovernmental’ organisations. The power and ideology within such establishments
often undermines individual states, and coerces them into maintaining/enhancing
neoliberalism, regardless of the harmful implications such processes produce upon passive
citizens (Barnett and Finnemore, 2004; Baylis et al, 2011).
Neoliberal advocates occupy influential positions in international institutions such as
the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade
Organisation (WTO). Such institutions regulate global trade, instil market precedence,
control regimes and shape structural conditions upon individual states which may be either
conductive to, or restrain against state-corporate crime (Harvey, 2005; Kawzlarich and
Mathews, 2006). These bodies materially impact nations, evidenced in the IMFs Structural
Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) which currently dominate European politics under the guise
of austerity (Petrakis et al, 2013). The WTO aided this by imposing the liberalization of the
international exchange of goods and services, while introducing markets which were formally
governed by different principles. This is no more evident than within welfare, where the
WTOs rules and regulations have resulted in wide-ranging privatisation, the breakdown of
the citizenship package, and increased harm (Price et al, 1999; Hatcher, 2000). Close state-
corporate ties are just as apparent within ‘supragovernmental’ organisations like the
European Union (EU).
The EU’s fanatical commitment to neoliberalism has imposed market rule upon
states while diminishing their power (Richardson, 2001). In EU countries, privatisation is
required under the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) and is widely encouraged by the
Organization for Economic Development (Clifton et al, 2003). A nation’s destiny is thus linked
to their cooperation with TNC interests. Global economic competitiveness, combined with
political willingness to partake in globalisation has subordinated social policies (Yeates,
2001). To appease business and maintain global competitiveness, market organisations
demand: low overheads; freedom of movement, capital and operations; flexible labour
markets; and low wages. The by-products of such conditions are: insecure
14
employment/unemployment; deplorable work/life balance; more accidents; increased
morbidity, mortality, physical and psychological harm; inadequate pension provision;
environmental damage; and the marginalisation and exclusion of groups, such as the
disabled, elderly workers and service users from the labour market. These factors
fundamentally stem from neoliberalism, and the harms such processes produce are
externalised onto individuals and welfare systems (Beresford, 2005; Tombs and Whyte,
2015).
This section has shown how corporations, supragovernmental bodies, international
financial institutions and states work in collusion to impose market ideals. By imposing legal
frameworks favourable to corporations, states have permitted crimes and preventable harms
against its citizens. This indicates that the ultimate role of international bodies and
governments is to reproduce the interests, and unequal power relations inherent to
capitalism (Tombs and Whyte, 2009). Furthermore, attention has been given to the markets
domination over politics and the state reliance on private capital, which essentially imprisons
policymaking (Lindblom, 1982). Rather than accepting the definition of the free market as
under state supervision, which was the embryonic formula of liberalism, contemporary
governments are under market supervision (Foulcault, 2008). This is because the circulation
of elites ensure any significant decision makers are generally harvested from the same
ideological crop (Wright Mills, 1956). Such relations mean corporate crimes often occur with
the permission, or at the behest of government (Tombs and Whyte, 2015).
The government’s regulatory bodies are central to this discussion. In order to
understand the nature of corporate wrongdoing within welfare, a comprehensive
understanding should be established of the state-corporate relationship. This takes an
institutional form through the state’s regulatory efforts, and particularly the way government
attempts to control business while simultaneously providing it with the context for profit
generation. The state designs and supposedly ‘enforces’ the rules by which the market is
supposed to operate, yet the state continually fails in devoting resources towards regulation.
The following section details the mechanisms and motives behind the state’s working
relationship with corporations, and shows how this relationship is a deliberate ploy which
enables the state to remain at arm’s length of the harms associated with outsourced welfare.
The dissertation contends that such formats can be construed as SCBP, as the government
is as intimately involved in the production of harm as the corporations delivering services.
State Crime by Proxy.
Welfare privatisation has increased service user harm (Clarke and Newman, 1997), and to
better understand this phenomena, analysis into the mechanisms linking the state and
15
corporations with the proxy measures they impose on public life is essential. Corporate and
governmental goals, their methods of achieving those goals, and their ability to conceal their
activities are complex, and makes studying SCBP difficult (Mathews, 2006). However, the
idea of state-corporate crime supplies a framework for analysing organisational deviance
created or facilitated at the cross-section of economic and political institutions. This
framework locates individual actors within institutional contexts, and further defines them
within broader political networks of economic forces which expound their functioning
environment. The discussion of collaboration categorises state-corporate crime in two
varieties: ‘state-facilitated’ crime: a category which describes crimes arising from negative
complicity (inadequate regulation, wilful blindness etc.), and state-initiated crime: where state
agencies lead and organise crime, and are assisted by corporations (Kramer, 1992;
Friedrichs, 1996; and Michalowski and Kramer, 2006).
The pressures of profit accumulation are useful in understanding the corporation’s
criminogenic potential, but it appears a less convincing model for the state. Having said that,
there are threads linking economic and political organisational deviance. The majority of
state-corporate crimes are “socially injurious acts that arise from the ownership or
management of capital or from the occupancy of positions of trust in institutions designed to
facilitate the accumulation of capital” (Michalowski, 1985: 314). In short: The state and
corporations interact as partners in crime (Whyte, 2009). The depth of this partnership
increases the possibility of particular groups and institutions, normally considered to exist
‘outside’ of the state are used to project state power. The extent to which institutions are
considered to exist ‘outside’ the state when they commit acts on behalf of the state is
questionable (Tombs and Whyte, 2015).
Under Cameron’s administrations, the state has renounced its role in public services,
inflicted marketized strategies on public outlets and outsourced services (Toynbee and
Walker, 2015). As well as market creation, the motivation for these processes is to enable
the state to become almost phantom like in their operations, as they distance themselves
from any direct responsibility and liability within the conduct of public services (Crouch,
2004). As Aulette and Michalowski (1993) noted, state-corporate crime is commonly
characterised by cases “in which government omissions permit private business to pursue
illegal and potentially injurious courses of action which in a general way, facilitate the
fulfilment of certain policies” (p175). This has been a long-established approach to evade
responsibility for actions undertaken by state agencies in pursuit of organisational goals, and
distance themselves from responsible actors who are administering illicit/harmful activities
on the government’s behalf (Green and Ward, 2004). This is worrying, as when economic
and political powers act in collusion to achieve common interests, the potential for harm is
16
magnified. Therefore states regularly burgeon spoken and unspoken arrangements for
deliberate ignorance regarding such actions within broader strategies of denial (Michalowski
and Kramer, 2006; Cohen, 2001).
The concept of SCBP aims to fracture the conceptual wall between political and
economic crimes, and to fashion new lenses to more accurately investigate the manner in
which harms and crimes emerge from intersections of political and economic power.
Organisational frameworks combined with political power have led to heinous acts which
would otherwise never occur. Economic and political crimes always involve complex
causations, as the crimes stemming from elitist decisions are rarely seen to be committed by
the officials which authorise them. Should anything questionable or illicit arise, politicians
and corporate actors claim ‘plausible deniability,’ as the blame is passed to other bodies
while claiming they never ordered the crimes/harms is question. SCBP occurs when
organisations within the state sector, and the private sector pursue goals in cooperation with
one another for their own self interests in a manner which produces harm (Autlee and
Michalowski, 2006; Kramer and Michalowski, 1990). These illegal and harmful actions stem
from a reciprocated reinforcing interaction between either; policies and practices pursuing
the goals of one or more institutions of economic production and distribution; or policies and
practices pursuing goals of one or more institutions of political governance (Autlee and
Michalowski, 1993). SCBP are therefore the harmful consequences of deviant inter-
organizational relationships between government and business (Kramer and Michalowski,
2006). The public seem blind to these arrangements, which is a purposeful design by the
architects of the state-corporate relationship.
The production and control of harm within welfare involves complex interdependency
between the state and corporate sectors. Social harm analysis into SCBP allows greater
understanding of this phenomena which has three principle characteristics: 1) It draws
attention to the ways in which deviant organisational outcomes are not detached acts, but
rather the result of inter-organisational relationships: 2) How the horizontal relations between
political and economic institutions contain the potential to inflict harmful actions: 3) It also
gives scope to consider the vertical relationships of differing levels of organisational action:
the institutional, the individual, and the political-economic. This relational approach provides
a more nuanced understanding of the processes leading to deviant organisational outcomes,
than perspectives which treat either government or business as closed systems (Kramer and
Michalowski, 2006; Wonders and Solop, 1993). It is important to look beyond organisational
forms to show how power is configured in and through the state (Coleman et al, 2009).
Using ‘other’ bodies to conduct crimes on their behalf is a purposeful, and beneficial ploy to
disguise true intentions and functions of the state, as well as allowing political leaders to
17
distance themselves from the harms their actions, or orders produce. The criminal courts
struggle with the government’s ability to ‘other’ their deviant activities, making accountability
hard to come by. Moreover, the wider networks which govern corporate-state surrogates,
causes the job of identifying and prosecuting those involved in harm production particularly
difficult, which further conceals the actors responsible for harm infliction (Jamieson and
McEvoy, 2005).
Concluding thoughts.
This chapter has shown how zemiology provides a wider investigative scope into what or
who may be responsible for harm production. By looking beyond the narrow proxy measures
or the responsibility of intent sought by criminal justice, zemiology permits consideration
towards the political, corporate and collective responsibility of harm. This is especially
important in contemporary Britain where neoliberal welfare reform has allowed corporations
to profit from people’s vulnerabilities (Hillyard and Tombs, 2004; Beresford, 2016;
Farnsworth, 2012). This is concerning as harms are produced systematically by markets,
permitted in the knowledge and functions of policy which permit corporations to act in an
uncontrollable fashion (Tombs and Whyte, 2004). It has also been highlighted how the focus
on crime and individualism serves to maintain existing social relations, and that research
around social harm is neglected as it would likely implicate the state (Hillyard and Tombs,
2004).
The state, and corporations act in collusion to create welfare systems which embed
various forms of harm. Moreover, the implementation of austerity and the limited funding
allocated to services makes it difficult for corporations to maximise financial returns (Deloitte,
2016). This occurs simultaneously with the many forms of ‘mock regulation’ that the state
engages in which permits private welfare providers to continue facilitating harmful practices.
The dissertation has indicated that state-corporate designed irresponsibility within legal
structures and policy, grants actors separation from their actions. This dismisses any notion
of accountability for the various illicit/harmful actions performed routinely by these forces
(Tombs and Whyte, 2015). The state’s proxy measures within welfare provide the necessary
guise for the continuation of neoliberal practices, and the harmful by-products which occur
evermore frequently, due to systems of structured irresponsibility. The reality of such notions
is the establishment of new harm production mechanisms, with insufficient regulatory
agencies to enforce legal repercussions for the harmful practices the state and corporations
subject service users too.
The austerity agenda neglects human need and basic welfare interests, whilst
denying the general standards of wellbeing necessary for people to function as purposeful
18
agents (Feinberg, 1984; Doyal and Gough, 1991; Gerwirth, 1978). Although the state has
frequently claimed that austerity impacts all of society, evidence indicates those of lower
socio-economic standing are more susceptible to welfare transformations (Edyrane, 2013). It
is generally assumed that living in a supposed free/civilised society brings along the right to
be free from pain, coercion or confinement; to have access to systems that aid people’s
physical/mental health needs, and ample resources to enable people to live an inclusive and
fulfilled life (Hayek, 2011). However, the implications of welfare neoliberalisation subject’s
service users to isolation, shame, ill health and premature deaths, as people are unable to
access the basic provision they need to protect them from harm (Barr et al, 2015; Mendoza,
2015). The political debate surrounding welfare commonly focusses on gain and costs;
dependence and interdependence; wealth creation and consumption. The state is said to be
a costly and inefficient provider of services, and various forms of institutional power have
successfully promoted the notion that publicly organised welfare is harmful to both
individuals and the economy. However, privatised welfare has continually failed to achieve
targets and has proved more expensive while enhancing levels of harm, therefore the
proclaimed benefits of privatisation are purely fiction (Beresford, 2005; Parker, 1998).
The following chapters provide case studies to explore the structuring of harm in
contemporary welfare services. The first case study analyses elderly care, where austerity
has resulted in the institutionalisation of harm through poorly resourced labour processes.
The impacts of outsourcing social care to the private sector are discussed as profit overrides
the welfare of service users. The state have under-resourced elderly care to the point where
neglect and harm are embedded throughout the sector (Skills for Care, 2015). Contrary to
government rhetoric of enhanced consumer choice and independence, the elderly ‘clients’ in
need of support have little choice in deciding their fate, and are often trapped in harmful, un-
dignified conditions in a system unfit to cater for their needs (Krajewski, 2014; Domingos,
2014). The second case study explores the WP, and argues such processes can be
construed as the mass organisation of mental distress. Attention is payed to the sanctioning
regime, as it represents direct state-facilitated harm for non-compliance to the conditionality
agreements which control the unemployed population (Wiggan, 2012; Wright, 2012). It is
important to highlight how the state is fundamentally at fault for all welfare related harms,
however sanctioning represents direct state harm, out in the open and away from the proxy
measures which dominate contemporary welfare. The chapter goes onto discuss further
eligibility measures through the Work Capability Assessments (WCA), which seek to
determine whether ill or disabled claimants are fit-to- work, or whether their conditions
warrant Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) (Pierson, 2016). This aligns more with
the general topic of this dissertation, as WCAs are outsourced to Maximius who facilitate the
19
state’s agenda on their behalf (White, 2016). The harms this proxy measure produces are
astounding, and arguably define the government’s assault on society’s weakest citizens.
Chapter 2.
Case Study: Elderly Care.
Institutionalising harm through poorly resourced labour processes.
Elderly care has always been problematic for government (Lewis, 2001). Discourses relating
to elder policy have historically taken for granted the low priority of the elderly, and the
burden that ageing places on government and its institutions (Hieda, 2012). Whilst all
services have experienced uncompromising financial limits, austerity has dragged social
care into new depths of despair (Jordan and Drakeford, 2013). Regardless of the elderly
population’s growth rate, £4.6 billion has been drained from social care over the past five
years (31% real terms reduction). Thus, funding fails to mirror demographical changes and
other factors elevating demand. Cameron’s governments have also shifted resource
allocations based upon party affiliation, limiting funding redistribution to materially deprived
areas (Mortimer and Green, 2015; Adass, 2015; Buck and Dixon, 2013; Carr-Hill et al, 1997;
HCHSC, 1996). Such impacts are grave considering 70% of the home care market and 60%
of residential care are dependent on public funds (Laing, 2014). Local authorities now only
provide direct care for elderly people when it is demonstrated that corporate provision cannot
meet a person’s needs (Drakeford, 2000).
There are roughly 17,300 social care organisations generating billions per annum.
Financialised interests reflect fleeting profit goals to secure the sectors long-term commercial
stability (Skills for Care, 2015; Clark, 2009; Thompson, 2013). However, around half of local
authority care directors felt that cost-saving pressured the sectors sustainability, and warned
20
the industry will be financially unviable should cuts continue at current rates (Franklin, 2015).
Such market conditions have expanded the role of private equity, as 8% of the residential
sector, and 11% of the home care sector are owned by such corporations, reflecting wider
trends of larger organisations entering the market (Laing and Buisson, 2012; Buchanan et al,
2012). Care privatisation largely entered public consciousness with the Southern Cross
Group fiasco (News Item, 2011). Southern Cross was an arm of Blackstone Capital Partners,
a private equity firm who orchestrated complex sale-and-leaseback systems which increased
rents when local authority funding was ailing, resulting in the firm plunging into administration
(Bawden and Alcock, 2011). The government’s response was enshrining new responsibilities
in the 2014 Care Act, which permitted the CQC to assess care providers’ financial
sustainability (DH, 2014). However, following the Serious Case Review (SCR) findings in the
Orchid View care home, the private equity model came under revived scrutiny. The inquest
declared 19 ‘unexplained deaths’ had occurred, and ‘neglect’ contributed to five of these.
The coroner deduced that ‘institutionalised abuse’ had transpired (BBC News, 2013).
Profit motives are rationalising services. Privatisation has reduced sector wide
performance, while diminishing workers’ rights and sustaining low pay (Lopez, 1998; Folbre,
2006). These factors contribute to rifts between employer expectations of staff, and the
actual ability of workers to deliver decent care (Greener, 2015). Management’s formal rules,
alongside the informal practice of staff, diverge into ‘parallel universes’ (Lopez, 2007: 225),
because breaking rules guiding care conduct is a ‘fix’ for the incongruity between formal
expectations of staff, and their inability to deliver sufficient care (Bolton and Wibberley,
2004). Care is a relational activity which cannot be rationalised without impacting its central
function – to meet the needs of others in a compassionate, responsive and emphatic manner
(McDonald and Merrill, 2002; Shah et al, 2010; Darton et al, 2012). Industries revolving
around people cannot reconfigure labour processes effectively to achieve efficiency gains.
However, this is neglected as managers fashion labour processes on a commodity
production model. Explaining harm infliction through labour processes links malpractice to
both the wider political economy and managerial proceedings (Thompson and Smith, 2009).
Private sector carers have worse pay and conditions compared to the public sector.
For instance, 59% of workers have had their hours unfavourably altered; 52% had increased
workloads; and 51% had pay reductions as corporations capitalise from austerity (Unison,
2013). Labour process theory conceptualises the nature of work, paying specific attention to
how contemporary capitalism organises human activities into spatial and temporal processes
to create surplus value (Braverman, 1974). This theoretical approach emphasises how care
suffers when it becomes rationalised to generate profit. Austerity has resulted in sector wide
downward pressure on wages, thus decreasing the value of the labour (Gardiner, 2015).
21
Marx argued the ultimate profit source is unpaid labour (Hodges, 1972). Between 150,000
and 200,000 workers are paid below the minimum wage, and 300,000 workers operate on
zero-hour contracts (Skills for Care, 2015; Hussein, 2011). Further, carers frequently work
upwards of 12 hours per day and domiciliary workers being unpaid for commuting is
statutory. These conditions maximise surplus value for shareholders (Lewis, 1998; Unison,
2013; Bellofiore, 2013). This theoretical standpoint reveals shareholder wealth derives from
unpaid labour, while enhancing understanding of social care’s exploitative mechanisms.
These processes undermine care work, as the poor conditions and status of carers contrasts
the skills and responsibilities the job entails.
Poor working conditions contribute to the 25% staff turnover rate, as around 300,000
workers leave the care sector annually. There are worrying levels of inexperienced staff, as
31% (around 372,000) started their role within the past year (Skills for Care, 2015; Unison,
2013; EHRC, 2011). The inexperienced labour force is concerning, especially considering
care training is notoriously poor and generally fails to prepare employees for the occupation
(Braye and Preston-Shoot, 1995). The ability to deal with specialised needs is integral to
care work, yet training is merely a formality, where the needs of service users are covered
with brief explanations to save expenditure (Howarth and Morrison, 1999; Unison, 2013).
Training provides managers the alibi needed in the event of mishaps to shift the blame onto
workers and disguise structural failures. This is best understood as managers and care
providers distancing themselves from responsibility and culpability of potential ramifications.
Managers can thus argue the appropriate training practices were followed and bureaucratic
instruments were functioning - should accidents occur staff are liable (Greener, 2015).
Staff could have unresolved conflicts due to frustration engendered by the low pay
and status associated with care, or the discouragement they feel from the underfunded and
understaffed facilities they work in (Keeping, 2014; McDonald, 2010). It could be argued that
carers are victims of their situation, as their employment conditions have concurring features
with other low pay/status occupations, such as stressful working conditions, few training
opportunities, limited career prospects and minimal managerial support (Donovan and
Wynne-Hatly, 1986; Downey, 1991; Mitchell, 1991). These factors may contribute to stress,
and feelings of unfulfillment, and because of these symptoms they may be less concerned
about the welfare of the elderly. In such circumstances, abusive practices are more likely to
occur (Marriot, 1997).
Elderly harm must be viewed against the backdrop of poor service development, with
the understanding that their dependence is structural (Phillipson, 1977; Townsend, 1981).
Explaining harm through a labour process approach links malpractice to the political
22
economy and corporate hierarchy, where harm production is embedded (Thompson and
Smith, 2009). Political economy approaches emphasise the economic, and structural issues
that are detrimental to personal or interpersonal aspects of harm, as well as the relationships
which negatively portray the elderly as passive victims of capitalism (Biggs et al, 1995).
Elderly people with psychological or physical frailties, illnesses effecting memory and
communication, are dependent on others, have poor carer relationships or are socially
isolated, are more susceptible to harm (Payne, 2005; Brogden and Nijhar, 2000). Harms can
be inflicted in peoples’ homes, hospitals and residential care, and may occur when power
imbalances are present (Whittacker, 1997; Anderson and Braun, 1999). However, harm
infliction and abuse can occur in a variety of forms, as ‘No Secrets’ states:
A violation of an individual’s human and civil rights by any other
person or persons… Abuse may consist of a single act or
repeated acts. It may be physical, verbal or psychological. It
may be an act of neglect or an omission to act, or it may occur
when a vulnerable person is persuaded into a financial or
sexual transition to which he or she has not consented or
cannot consent. Abuse can occur in any relationship and may
result in significant harm to, or exploitation of, the person
subjected to it.
(DH, 2000: 9)
If the exercise of rights is the hallmark of citizenship then many elderly people are
exempt. Elderly people are often confined in institutional settings where they are at greater
risk of harm than those in the community (Bonda and Bello-Haas, 2009). They often have
little choice where they are placed, and frequently find themselves in a disorientated state in
unfamiliar surroundings. This causes many elderly residents to lose their remaining skills,
suffer from isolation, loneliness, depression and emotional distress having lost their existing
support networks, making them more susceptible to inappropriate care (Prichard, 1997).
Abuse takes many forms. Physical abuse may involve being hit, burned, sexually assaulted,
or physically restrained, whereas psychological abuse can involve a person being
humiliated, insulted, intimidated, or frightened (Hickey and Douglas, 1981). Thus, elderly
abuse consists of the systematic maltreatment by care-givers (Eastman, 1984). There have
been countless cases of abuse and cruelty although deliberate abuse from staff is less
common. Physical neglect however, is common, and is evidenced in the countless cases of
insufficient nutrition, bedsores, and improper medication administration (Kimsey et al, 1981).
It is customary to draw distinctions between individual harmful/abusive acts in institutions
and clear institutional or institutionalised harms/abuse (Glendenning, 1997). Although direct
abuse does occur, the scale of it does not compare to institutional abuse, where the rules,
environment and practices of institutions become harmful/abusive in themselves (Decalmer,
1993).
23
It would be naïve to argue that the neglect which mars elderly care occurs because
care staff are simply bad people who are unfit to practice. Sector wide neglect is a
consequence of privatisation/marketization as understaffed and under resourced services,
combined with overworked and undertrained staff culminate to the point where mistakes are
incessant in care settings. The government should acknowledge that harm is created
through their policies, their insistence in engineering social care as a market, and from failing
to stop regulatory bodies from furthering corporate interests. However even if the CQC had
the capabilities to criminalise guilty actors, the fact that they are set up to advance corporate
interests over the safeguarding of vulnerable people means that such regulatory bodies are
unlikely to be credible (Tombs and Whyte, 2008; Glendinning, 2012).
Concluding thoughts.
What is the point of state run regulatory bodies such as the CQC when it is the state who is
promoting the market values that are at the root of the mass malpractice in the sector? The
CQC is central to the discussion because it embodies the fact that the state oversees the
sector while simultaneously providing it with the context for profit generation. This shows
how the state designs, and supposedly enforces the rules for the market, and exemplifies
how it fails in its operational duty of protecting the elderly from the market’s vagrancies. Care
corporations hold significant political weight (under current conditions) because without them
there would be few avenues to cater for Britain’s ageing population. The state’s funding
reductions to the CQC, it could be argued, is a recognition that a key aspect of its operations
is to permit, even encourage economic progression, and only intervene in clear cases of
protection (Tombs and Whyte, 2008; Glendinning, 2012). Less regulation means greater
corporate freedom (Leonard, 2015), and it benefits the state for such practices to continue
as they have outsourced the responsibility of harm - at least perceptually - to other bodies.
This enables them to remain at arm’s length of the harms their policies produce.
This chapter has shown how care providers only generate profit by cutting financial
corners. However, many harms inflicted upon both staff and service user’s stretch wider than
this, as human and welfare rights are frequently violated in this deteriorating sector (HRW,
2013). As long as service users are subject to the control of corporations these crimes/harms
will continue. The fragmentation of care has led to an array of accountability problems, as
the state and corporations both claim plausible deniability to protect their interests (Streifer
and Barr, 2008; Martin et al, 2010). The state’s proxy measures have resulted in actions that
could be considered crimes, especially because they represent the mass mistreatment of the
elderly. These people often have mental, physical and cognitive illnesses which further
deteriorate as their needs are neglected under current formats (Naylor et al, 2012). It can be
argued that this a SCBP, as the outsourcing of care is to hide the mistreatment of innocent
24
people from the electorate. By permitting corporations to facilitate this state function, the
government has distanced itself from guilt, perceptually playing no part in the harms their
orders produce (Michalowski and Kramer, 2006). The following chapter analyses differing
aspects of the WP where punishment rather than support is the dominant ideal within
welfares unemployment remit (Slater, 2012).
Chapter 3.
Case Study: Mental Health and Welfare Reform: The mass organisation of mental
distress through austerity driven welfare reform.
This chapter analyses the structuring of harm within welfare and details how austerity driven
reforms can be construed as the mass organisation of mental distress. The Welfare Reform
Act (2012) transformed welfare into workfare, as claimants now partake in enhanced
conditionality requirements to receive relief (Fletcher, 2015). The WP paints a disturbing
picture of the harmful reality of contemporary welfare, as reforms have increased suspicion
and control over citizens, whilst justifying it as incentivising the ‘feckless’ (Garthwaite, 2013).
This chapter covers the Jobseekers Allowance sanctioning regime, where the state withdraw
benefits following non-compliance (Beatty et al, 2015). Zemiology enables qualitative
assessment of the implications of sanctioning and WCAs, which determine the eligibility of ill
and disabled adults (Morrison, 2013). Unlike sanctioning, where the state directly controls
the operation of harm production, WCA represents state-corporate facilitated harm and can
be construed as SCBP. The chapter contends the state and corporations act in collusion to
commit crimes against citizens to achieve economic ends. It is noteworthy to mention how
the inclusion of further conditionality arrangements, such as the ‘bedroom tax’ were
considered however, it was beyond the scope of this dissertation.
Welfare conditionality and the sanctioning regime.
25
Sanctions are essential to enforcing mandatory participation,
because participation is not truly mandatory unless there is a
consequence for not participating.
(Besharov and Germanis, 2004: 99)
Welfare conditionality is a longstanding practice, however the introduction of enhanced
sanctioning in 2012 intensified it. Non-compliance now results in benefit withdrawal for any
time between two weeks and three years, as the state attempt to deter and control claimant
numbers (Wright, 2012; Wiggan, 2012). The Claimant Commitment agreement specifies
requirements such as: job-seeking for 35 hours per week; job application targets; and
attending meetings and courses. Benefits are conditional on such requirements (HCWPC,
2014). The state assumes sanctions are amenable remedies to reform delinquent
characteristics (Watts et al, 2014). This ideology is detrimental to the health and prospects of
Jobseekers, as punishment rather than support and development is the dominant ideal
(Mind, 2014). Justifications for conditionality generally derive from paternalism, as the state
acknowledge sanctions cause short-term harm, but feel they are in claimants long-term
interests (Watts et al, 2014). From 2010-2015, around 3.4 million sanctions were served
effecting 22% of Jobseekers (Field and Forsey, 2016; AY, 2014). Most claimants know about
sanctions but fail to understand the severity of the principles, meaning the state effectively
punish for poor understanding rather than deliberate non-compliance (Griggs and Evans,
2010).
Sanctioning decreases employment prospects - in 2013 for example, only one in
seven JSA claimants gained employment within 12 months of WP participation, and only one
from 25 ESA claimants (DWP, 2013; Watts et al, 2014). Such figures appear to be a failure,
however, the majority of DWP targets are based around benefit off-flow making sanctions
crucial (Beatty and Fothergill, 2011). Jobcentre advisors are obligated, even incentivised to
increase benefit off-flow (Langman, 2012). How the state expect people to continue seeking
employment without adequate resources is unfathomable considering benefits are essential
for survival (O’Hara, 2015). Furthermore, the financial disruption of sanctions falls
disproportionately upon those with the least capacity to absorb them, leaving many destitute
(Clark and Heath, 2014). Destitution arises within welfare arrangements when vulnerable
groups have insufficient social security entitlements to meet essential needs. Claimant’s
precarious socio-economic position leaves them little capacity to withstand income ‘shocks’
(Fitzpatrick et al, 2016).
Disturbingly, harm to health is a deliberate facet of sanctioning. This seems a
farfetched accusation, however the DWP guidance acknowledges sanctions deteriorate
health:
26
It would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer some
deterioration in their health if they were without (1) essential
items, such as food, clothing, heating and accommodation or
sufficient money to buy essential items for a period of two
weeks.
(DWP, chapter 35, para 35099, 2015a)
It’s alarming that the welfare system deliberately exploits people’s vulnerabilities to enhance
social control. Claimants’ income is around the destitution threshold, meaning slight financial
alterations make necessities unattainable (Fitzpatrick et al, 2016). It is common for claimants
to have inadequate clothing, heat or light in homes, or to fall behind on bills (CAS, 2014).
Food and hunger are constant sources of stress. Many claimants rely on food banks for
survival, and the stigmatisation associated with this contributes to anxiety, as the
embarrassment of being poor and reliant on others for support ads to feelings of
helplessness. Many take out debt, joining the one million households dependent on pay day
loan companies to cover basic expenditures. These economic hardships, and the
culmination of stressful factors are triggering unprecedented levels of depression, anxiety
and self-harm (Barnes et al, 2016; Clifton, 2013). People losing their benefits is one thing,
but how sanctions impact people’s dignity and health is another. It may seem obvious that
economic hardship effects mental health, however the shame, isolation, powerlessness and
insecurity associated with poverty are exacerbated by sanctioning. Jobseekers have mental
health issues at nearly twice the rate of the general population, with almost a quarter living
with symptoms of anxiety or depression. The shame and stigma associated with the WP is
proving too much for claimants, many of whom see suicide as the only option to relieve
themselves from mental strain (Fitzpatrick et al, 2016).
95% of suicides are due to mental distress and in 2013, 6,233 people committed
suicide (Cavangh et al, 2003; ONS, 2015). Suicides increase in times of economic hardship,
with those of a lower socio-economic position being 10 times more susceptible to suicide
than those of affluence, with unemployed citizens being three times more likely to commit
suicide than those in employment (Durkheim, 1897; Kennelly and Connolly, 2012; Wyllie et
al, 2012). Applying zemiology to such harms would investigate beyond prevalent
assumptions of mental distress as a personal, or public health problem, as the issue is
largely political (Wright Mills, 1959; Duterte, 1984). The causes of suicide predominantly
derive from socio-economic factors such as inequality, socio-economic deprivation,
unemployment, health inequalities, social exclusion, as well as precarious welfare processes
(Wyllie et al, 2012). People perceive themselves as burdens, promoting the isolation and
social disconnection associated with sanctioning (Robiero and Joiner, 2011). This is no more
evident than within the male unemployed population.
27
Men are four times more likely to commit suicide than women at 19 deaths per
100,000 and 5.1 per 100,000 respectively (Leone, 2012; Scowcroft, 2015). Imposed gender
roles alongside benefit conditionality contribute to suicide discrepancies (Maris et al, 2000;
McCartney, 2014). The unfortunate culmination of mental health issues, feelings of
entrapment, defeat and worthlessness are manufactured within particular economic, social
and cultural contexts contributing to male suicide rates. Definitions of masculinity are
counterproductive amongst claimants, as poor living standards, combined with suspicion and
material punishment, contradict the ideals of hegemonic masculinity. Having to depend on
others undermines expectations of security and stability, meaning unemployed men lack key
aspects of masculine identity (Fitzpatrick et al, 2016; Wyllie et al, 2012; Tomlinson, 2012;
Kreitman et al, 1991). This enhances risk of depression, alcohol and drug abuse, and social
isolation which are also contributing factors in suicide (Lundin and Hemmington, 2009).
Sanctioning exacerbates the shame, isolation, powerlessness and insecurity which
have long been endemic to poverty. The threat is ever-present, and leads to perpetual cycles
of uncertainty, as claimants are only ever one mistake or misunderstanding away from
destitution. Unfortunately for some claimants, a life of being disrespected and dishonoured is
too unbearable. This section has highlighted the socio-economic factors of the increase in
suicides, and how they were exacerbated by sanctions. The state must address the causes
of the clamant vulnerability for lower socio-economic demographics. Inequality and socio-
economic deprivation should also be addressed, but in the short-term the state must
reconsider its punitive stance on benefit conditionality as this would alleviate many
unnecessary harms and deaths (Wyllie et al, 2012).
So far this chapter has devoted attention to direct state-facilitated harm through the
sanctioning regime. The chapter has shown that sanctions are counterproductive and
dangerous, as the state is punishing people in their lowest, most desperate hour for the
‘cardinal’ sin of unemployment. The following section highlights another aspect of the WP
through analysing WCAs. This section will show how the state’s proxy measures
systematically target society’s most vulnerable demographics, and the subsequent effects
such processes have upon those most in need of state relief.
Work Capability Assessments.
The WP systematically targets vulnerable people who often do not have the capacity to work
(Sinclair, 2016). Corporations aid the government’s classicist agenda, as private company
Maximus administer WCAs to determine if ill or disabled claimants are fit-to-work or eligible
for ESA (Pierson, 2016). People claim ESA when their GP’s deem them unfit to work, the
DWP then assess medical evidence when claimants apply for ESA (Griffiths and Patterson,
28
2014). Claimants are required to complete the ESA50 questionnaire for initial assessment
(Harris, 2013). It is un-dignifying to have to justify conditions, especially considering doctor’s
notes are legally binding documents evidencing medical ailments (Blackwell, 2010). WCAs
consist of Maximus’s healthcare officials asking questions regarding claimant’s day-to-day
activities to assess how their disability, or illness effects working capabilities. WCAs are
points based – a minimum of 15 points deems people as having limited capacity to work
(Litchfield, 2013). Assessors ask health related and generic questions which manipulate
claimant responses to align with preferred outcomes. Claimants may also be required to
carry out physical tasks to assess their capabilities (DWP, 2014; DS, 2012; NAT, 2015).
Maximus’s healthcare professionals have the power to override GP’s should they deem
claimants fit-to-work (DPAC, 2012). However, health conditions are rarely consistent, and
people may be able to perform greater physical activities on some days than others, and for
those with mental illnesses, a ‘normal day’ is hard to define (Hausman, 2015; Rogers and
Pilgrim, 2003). Such conditions are not as simple as black and white, yet such factors are
disregarded.
Maximus’s health professionals adhere to DWP performance targets to increase
benefit off-flow, thus setting claimants up to fail (NAO, 2016; Bailey and Jeffrey, 2012).
Healthcare professionals make recommendations to the DWP based on WCA outcomes,
and claimants must then wait for the DWP’s ‘decision makers’ call. They assess the
evidence of the ESA50 and the WCA to decide if claimants should be placed into the “unfit to
work” category where claimants can continue claiming ESA, or the “Work Related Activity
Group” (WRAG). This means ESA is withdrawn and claimants are transferred to Jobseekers
Allowance (Adams et al, 2012). This process significantly reduces income, and claimants
must adhere to Jobseeker conditionality regulations (discussed previously). However the
WRAG subjects claimants to more stringent conditionality because they could face open
ended sanctions, followed by fixed period sanctions (Watts et al, 2014). WCAs have little
regard for how ill or disabled claimants need the extra capital ESA provides to live a safe and
dignified life (Hemingway, 2011). These processes further marginalise some of society’s
most vulnerable, as claimants struggle to manage their new living conditions, which result in
increased harms and deaths amongst those unfortunate enough to be subject to WCAs:
The government’s own statistics show that, between 2010 and
2011, 10,600 sick and disabled people died while going through
the Atos Assessment process. This is 204 people a week, or 29
people a day. Some 2,200 of these people died before finding
out if they were still entitled to their social security, and an
astonishing 1,300 had been declared ‘fit to work’ by being
placed in their Work Related Activity Group. These people
spent their final weeks alive being harassed by the Job Centre,
answering pointless questions, and fretting over late-payment
29
notices and threats of eviction as their social safety net was
ripped away.
(Mendoza, 2015: 65)
As well as this wave of unnecessary and preventable deaths, the WCAs impacts
include 279,000 additional self-reported mental health cases and 725,000 additional anti-
depressants prescriptions, such mental distress levels contributed to the 590 associated
suicides between 2010-13 (Barr et al, 2015). These figures failed to deter the continuation of
WCAs, and a Freedom of Information Request forced the government to release up-to-date
statistics on WCAs impacts (Butler, 2015). Mortality Statistics (2015) revealed 80 people a
month have been dying after being declared ‘fit-to-work’. These statistics point to two
noteworthy facts: between December 2011 and February 2014, 2,380 people died after
being deemed fit-to-work and rejected for ESA; and 7,200 deaths occurred after being
granted ESA and placed in the WRAG category (DWP, 2015b). The impacts of the WCA on
mental distress and mortality rates are concerning, and can be deemed SCBP. This is
because the harms produced by Maximus are produced by order of the state, whose policies
permit- even encourage- the mistreatment of claimants. WCAs could be deemed criminal
because they represent the systematic targeting of societies weakest citizens (Crisis, 2012).
These people are helpless against such institutional power, as the strain the WP places
upon claimants pushes many into the social abyss or early graves.
WCA processes could arguably be viewed as democide, as some claimants are, in
essence, killed by the state or officials acting on their behalf (Totten and Bartrop, 2008). This
means that Maximus are also culpable because they are acting according to DWP policy
which is proven to cause death with the approval of state officials. These deaths therefore
can be considered democide as the government is purposely permitting and/or creating
conditions which systematically produce death. Moreover, WCAs features share many
genocidal traits: Targeted groups, like the ill and disabled, suffer gross mental and physical
harm. The state have also deliberately inflicted physical destitution on a group which fails to
align with their ideology (Simon, 2007; Nersessian, 2010). When WCAs are conceptualised
with the language of democide and genocide, it fashions new lenses to view contemporary
welfare arrangements. These words are normally associated with the horrors of the
Holocaust (Rubinstein, 2004), and if the public viewed the WP in this light they would likely
deem such actions/processes criminal and demand accountability. This is why the state
establish proxy measures - to distance themselves from the harmful consequences of
WCAs, as the state is as intimately linked to harm production via Maximus. These processes
stem from a reciprocated, reinforcing interaction between governmental policy, and the
formats which enable the pursuit of aligned state-corporate goals. Such proxy measures
provide the essential guise for the state to distance themselves from potential legal
30
ramifications, and for the electorate to disassociate the harms and deaths caused by WCAs
from the state. This is a purposeful design of the government’s proxy measures, because in
the event of mishaps the state can blame Maximus for the mass mistreatment of society’s
welfare dependents.
Concluding thoughts.
This chapter has shown how the state and corporations use highly sophisticated strategies
that are supported by ideological rationales to collaborate in the production of crime/harm
against state dependent citizens. State-corporate crime- where select corporations exploit
citizens to achieve profitable ends- reflects the impacts of neoliberalism. The term ‘crime
against citizens’ is arguably a more fitting way to conceptualise the extent and scale of
harms the state-corporate partnership inflicts on society’s vulnerable. This chapter has
shown the cleft between the rhetoric justifying the WP and the evidence of its impacts, and
shown how neoliberal processes severely undermine the welfare state’s underlying
philosophy (Morgen et al, 2010). People are subject to the market’s vagrancies as the
current system strips people of their only income for non-compliance of overly strict rules, or
being deemed not ill or disabled enough to receive correct entitlement (Paz-Fuchs, 2008).
Welfare claimants have committed no crime, yet are being punished for failing to meet
capitalisms ideals.
The WP is unjust, discriminative and harmful, and has increased the propagation of
material disadvantage and poverty, shame and stigma, exclusion and isolation, and dwindled
assistance entitlement and recognition of infirmity. This chapter has detailed how death is
now a standardised component of contemporary welfare, as a combination of sanctions,
multiple cuts and defective “fit-to-work” tests have increased harms and mortality (Embargo,
2013). Such preventable harms are structural failures to protect the poor, ill and disabled. In
blatant view, welfare principles are being stripped; moving away from respect, solidarity and
opportunity, towards isolation and destitution (Hansen, 1999). It is difficult to justify a system
that impacts so severely on people seeking support. Irrespective of class, circumstances or
material need, all citizens have innate human dignity and deserve to be treated with respect
(Nussbaum, 2011). It is concerning that foundational Beveridgean welfare principles are
being contradicted so viciously as society should reflect people’s mutual dependence
instead of demonizing those in need. Central to concerns is a rudimentary question: what
are the goals of contemporary welfare? If it is merely to reduce welfare recipients then it is
operating optimally. If this is society’s goal however, then what is the purpose of welfare
provision? If the state wants a healthy, labour engaging population, performing sustainable,
fulfilling and economically viable jobs, then current processes are causing more harm than
good. Societies aim should be to avoid hardship, but as this chapter has shown, the state is
31
unequivocally causing direct mass harm, destitution and death to achieve neoliberal
objectives.
Chapter 4. Conclusion.
This dissertation has detailed how the past 30-40 years of neoliberalism has transformed
welfare into a key arena for corporate profit generation, and how such social and economic
developments have been exacerbated under recent Conservative rule. Further, attention has
been payed to how the concept of crime serves power relations and permits the state to
discredit the structural determinants contributing to harm (Tombs and Whyte, 2015). The
social harm perspective provided the yardstick by which harm could be measured, to
develop a means of conceptualising the injurious nature of corporate welfare delivery.
Corporations are criminogenic by nature and have further compounded the problems
associated with contemporary welfare. Myths have been dispelled that the state and
corporations are binary opposites with opposing interests, as austerity, whilst being
propagated as a necessity, has proved to be the necessary guise for privatisation (Berry,
2016). Austerity has ignored basic human needs and denied people the ability to function as
purposeful agents. This dissertation has discussed how austerity has limited the funding
allocated to corporate services, which in turn coerce providers into implementing marketized
strategies to reach profitable ends (Deloitte, 2016). This is exemplified in the case study
analysing elderly care, where such processes have resulted in the institutionalisation of if
harm through poorly resourced labour processes.
32
Political economy approaches within elderly care emphasise the economic and
structural issues, where practices geared towards saving expenditure result in harms being
incessant in care settings (Ugwumada, 2011). A cross-sector drive to diminish workers’ rights
and sustain low pay has had negative effects on performance. Contrary to political and
corporate assertions, industries revolving around people cannot reconfigure labour
processes to achieve efficiency gains. Care is a relational activity which cannot be
rationalised without impacting upon its central functions (McDonald and Merrill, 2002; Shah
et al, 2010; Darton et al, 2012). The government rhetoric claiming enhanced consumer
choice and independence has been questioned, and it has been shown that elderly social
care ‘clients’ are often trapped in the harmful and un-dignifying conditions defining this
deteriorating sector (Domingos, 2014; Krajewski, 2014). The government must acknowledge
that because of their insistence on engineering social care as a market, their policies are the
source of mass devastation. To further analyse contemporary welfare, the second case
study provided an overview of the WP, which the dissertation contended could be construed
as the mass organisation of mental distress though austerity driven welfare reform.
By providing contrasting accounts of both direct state-facilitated harm through the
sanctioning regime, and state-corporate facilitated harm by way of WCAs, this dissertation
aimed to highlight the different ways in which harm is produced by the WP. The dissertation
has shown how the state assumes sanctions are necessary remedies to reform delinquent
characteristics, however such ideologies have proved counterproductive considering how
DWP targets are based around benefit off-flow (Bailey and Jeffrey, 2012; Beatty and
Fothergill, 2011). It has been asserted that sanctioning deliberately inflicts harm and exploits
people’s vulnerabilities to achieve control and compliance. The isolation, powerlessness and
insecurity which have long been endemic to poverty are proliferated through sanctioning,
and it has been detailed how such processes have increased mental distress and suicides,
particularly within the unemployed male population. This is attributed to not only poor living
standards, but also to the suspicion, material punishments and the shame associated with
being supplicant on others (Wyllie et al, 2012; Marris et al, 2000; McCartney, 2014). The
dissertation has shown how sanctioning represents direct state-facilitated harm out in the
open, and away from the proxy measures which dominate contemporary welfare, unlike
WCAs which defines the state-corporate assault on the non-working population.
The WCA, like sanctioning, is geared towards benefit off-flow and sets claimants up
to fail. The increasing harms and deaths associated with WCAs have failed to deter the state
from implementing neoliberal ideals, which- it has been asserted- could be construed as
SCBP. The WCA can also be viewed as criminal because it systematically targets citizens
who often do not have the capacity to work, and are helpless against the institutional forces
33
consigning them to a marginalised existence. The mortality rates associated with the
outsourcing of WCAs are astounding, and is arguably democide, because the state has
created and continue to permit the conditions for Maximus to act according to policy which is
proven to cause death. Should the public be aware of such practices, they would likely deem
them criminal and demand accountability. This dissertation contends that this is why the
state establishes proxy measures – to distance themselves from the harmful consequences
of contemporary welfare arrangements. It has been argued that the state is as intimately
linked to harm production as the corporations acting on their behalf, as these processes
stem from a reciprocated reinforcing interaction between state policy, and the formats
pursuing aligned goals.
Attention has been given to how proxy measures provide the state distance from
potential legal ramifications and how this is a purposeful design to disguise the mass
mistreatment of welfare dependents. Moreover, arguments were put forward that the term
‘crimes against citizens’ is more fitting to conceptualise the extent and scale of harms that
state-corporate partnerships inflict on society’s vulnerable, as it not only reflects the impacts
of neoliberalism, but is also a means where select corporations exploit citizens to achieve
profitable ends. Analysis into SCBP allows greater understanding of the mechanisms of
harm production, and draws attention to how such processes are the consequences of
deviant inter-organisational relationships between government and business. The concept of
SCBP and zemiological approaches has been used to rupture the conceptual wall between
political and economic crimes/harms. This has fashioned new lenses with which to better
view the ways in which harms and crimes emerge from the intersections of political and
economic power (Autleee and Michalowski, 2006; Kramer and Michalowski, 1990).
This dissertation has provided an examination of the unprecedented levels of harm
produced by neoliberal welfare arrangements. The evidence shown highlights why
resistance must occur to prevent further corporate participation in service delivery, because
the needs and rights of service users must be prioritised over the needs of capital.
Contemporary welfare arrangements only serve the very corporations who disregard the
humanistic consequences of their endeavours. All people have innate dignity, compassion
and self-respect and are more than mere corporate commodities. Citizenship rights must be
upheld in order to prevent the scale of harms currently dogging contemporary welfare. To
achieve this, the corporate ethos must be replaced with public service ideals in order to re-
create the fundamentals of the post-war consensus. Contrary to state-corporate rhetoric,
neoliberalism is not inevitable, and the harms produced by the profit process do not have to
occur. The public should be made aware of how the state is committing crime and inflicting
harm through various proxy measures. This will take further, more detailed research than
34
what this dissertation provides, and will take the political will of citizens, who more than likely,
throughout their lifespan will be subject to the control of welfare corporations should
neoliberalism be allowed to continue. Society has an ethical obligation to fight against the
neoliberal tide sweeping away the services which made Britain a social democracy. If
resistance doesn’t occur, the various forms of institutionalized power will only enhance their
already powerful positions and establish new forms of state-corporate harm production to the
detriment of all citizens.
References.
- Adams, L., Oldfield, K. and Riley, C. (2012). Decision making on Employment and
Support Allowance claims. Department for Work and Pensions Research Paper.
(Online). Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214575
/rrep788.pdf. (Accessed 24/10/16).
- Adass: Directors of Adult Social Services (2015). Budget Survey 2015: Key
Messages. (Online). Available at: https://www.adass.org.uk/media/4345/key-
messages-final.pdf. (Accessed 23/09/16).
- Advice York. (2014). Independent review of Jobseeker’s Allowance Sanctions –
Mathew Oakley Call for Evidence – Response from Advice York. Advice York.
(Online). Available at: http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/Advice
%20York%20Response%20to%20JSA%20Sanctions%20Review%20Jan
%202014.pdf. (Accessed 16/10/16).
- Anderson, M.A. and Braun, J.V. (1999). Caring for the Elderly Client. Michigan. F.A.
Davis.
- Apel, R. and Paternoster, R. (2009). Understanding “Criminogenic” Corporate
Culture: What White-Collar Crime Researchers Can Learn from Studies of the
Adolescent Employment-Crime Relationship. In: Simpson, S.S. and Weisburd, D.
(eds). The Criminology of White-Collar Crime. New York. Springer: 15-34.
35
- Aulette, J. and Michalowski, R. (1993). Fire in Hamlet: A Case Study of State-
Corporate Crime. In: Tunnell, K. (eds). Political Crime in Contemporary America. New
York: Garlend: 171-206.
- Bailey, T. and Jeffrey, R. (2012). An Advice York Response to: Fifth independent
review of the Work Capability Assessment: call for evidence. Citizens Advice Bureau.
(Online). Available at: http://www.adviceyork.org.uk/ESA%20WCA%20review%20-
%20Printable%20version%20Final%2012%2008%2014.pdf. (Accessed 24/10/16).
- Bakan, J. (2004). The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power.
Toronto: Viking Canada.
- Barkan, S.E. and Bryjak, G.J. (2011). Fundamentals of Criminal Justice: A
Sociological View. 2nd Edition. Sudbury, MA. Jones and Bartlett Learning.
- Barnes, M.C., Gunnell, D., Davies, R., Hawton, K., Kapur, N., Potokar, J. and
Donovan, J.L. (2016). Understanding vulnerability to self-harm in times of economic
hardship and austerity: a qualitative study. British Medical Journal. 6: 1-8.
- Barnett, M. and Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the World: International
Organizations in Global Politics. New York. Cornell University.
- Barr, D., Taylor-Robinson, D., Stuckler, D., Loopstra, R., Reeves, A. and Whitehead,
M. (2015). ‘First, do no harm’: are disability assessments associated with adverse
trends in mental health? A longitudal ecological study. Journal of Epistemology and
Community Health: 1-7.
- Barton, A., Corteen, K., Scott, D. and Whyte, D. (2007). Conclusion: expanding the
criminological imagination. In: Barton, A., Corteen, K., Scott, D. and Whyte, D. (eds).
Expanding the Criminological Imagination. Collompton: Willan.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
- Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (2011). The Globalization of World Politics: An
introduction to international relations. 5th Edition. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
- BBC News. (2015). A4e staff jailed for DWP back-to-work training fraud. (Online).
Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32139244. (Accessed 14/09/16).
- Beatty, C. and Fothergill, S. (2011). Incapacity Benefit Reform: The local, regional
and national impact. Centre for Regional and Economic Social Research. (Online).
Available at: http://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/incapacity-
benefit-reform.pdf. (Accessed 16/10/16).
- Beatty, C., Foden, M., McCarthy, C. and Reeve, K. (2015). Benefit sanctions and
homelessness: a scoping report. Sheffield Hallam University Centre for Regional
Economic and Social Research. (Online). Available at:
http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/Sanctions%20Report
%202015_FINAL.pdf. (Accessed 15/10/16).
- Becker, H.S. (1967). Whose Side Are We On? Social Problems. 14 (3): 239-247.
- Bellofiore, R. (2013). The Grundrisse after Capital, or How to Re-Read Marx
Backwards. In: Bellofiore, R., Starosta, G. and Thomas, P.D. (eds). In Marx’s
Laboratory: Critical Interpretations of the Grundrisse. Leiden and Boston. Brill: 17-42.
36
- Beninger, S. and Francis, J.N.P. (2015). Appropriation of Community Knowledge:
Towards an Understanding of the Potential Harm and Benefits. Journal of
Macromarketing. 36 (2): 183-197.
- Benn, S., Dunphy, D. and Griffiths, A. (2014). Organizational Change for Corporate
Sustainability. 3rd Edition. New York. Routledge.
- Bent, P.H. (2016). The historical development of the US government’s responses to
economic and financial crisis. In: Hollow, M., Akinbami, F. and Michie, R. (eds).
Complexity and Crisis in the Financial System: Critical perspectives on the Evolution
of American and British Banking: 243-260.
- Beresford, P. (2005). Redistributing Profit and Loss: the new economics of the market
and social welfare. Critical Social Work. 25 (4): 464-482.
- Beresford, P. (2016). All Our Welfare: Towards participatory social policy. Bristol.
Policy Press.
- Berry, C. (2016). Austerity Politics and UK Economic Policy. Basingstoke. Palgrave
Macmillan.
- Besharov, D.J. and Germanis, P. (2004). Full-Engagement Welfare in New York City:
Lessons for TANF’s Participation Requirements. Washington, D.C. American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
- Biggs, S., Phillipson, C. and Kingston, P. (1995). Elder Abuse in Perspective.
Buckingham. Open University Press.
- Blackwell, A.H. (2010). Law. New York. Ferguson Publishing.
- Block, F. (1987). The Mean Season: The Attack on the Welfare State. New York:
Pantheon Books.
- Bolton, S.C. and WIbberley, G. (2014). Domiciliary care: the formal and informal
labour process. Sociology. 48 (4): 682-97.
- Bonder, B.R. and Bello-Haas, V.D. (2009). Functional Performance in Older Adults.
3rd Edition. Philadelphia. F.A. Davis Company.
- Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the
twentieth century. New York. Monthly Review Press.
- Braye, S. and Preston-Shoot, M. (1995). Empowering Practice in Social Care.
Maidenhead. Open University Press.
- Brogden, M. and Nijhar, P. (2000). Crime, Abuse and the Elderly. Cullompton. Willan
Publishing.
- Buchanan, P., Fenton, W. and Woodrow, S. (2012). The State of the Adult Social
Care Sector and Workforce in England. Leeds. Skills for Care.
- Buck, D. and Dixon, A. (2013). Improving the allocation of health resources in
England: How to decide who gets what. The Kings Fund: Ideas that change health
care. (Online). Available at:
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/improving-the-
allocation-of-health-resources-in-england-kingsfund-apr13.pdf. (Accessed 23/09/16).
37
- Butts, D. (2003). How Corporations Hurt Us All: Saving Our Rights, Democracy,
Institutions, and Our Future. Bloomington. Trafford Publishing.
- Carr-Hill R, Hardman G, Martin S, Peacock S, Sheldon T, Smith P. (1997). A new
formula
- Cavanagh, J.T., Carson, A.J., Sharpe, M. and Lawrie, S. (2003). Psychological
autopsy studies of suicide: a systematic review. Psychological Medicine. 33: 395-
405.
- Chaston, I. (2012). Public Sector Reformation: Values-driven Solutions to Fiscal
Constraint. London. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Citizens Advice Scotland. (2014). Sanctioned: what benefit? A report on how
sanctions are operating from the experience of Scottish Citizens Advice Bureaux.
Citizens Advice Scotland. (Online). Available at:
http://www.cas.org.uk/system/files/publications/Sanctioned+What+benefit.pdf.
(Accessed 16/10.16).
- Clark, I. (2009). Owners and managers: disconnecting managerial capitalism?
Understanding the private-equity business model. Work, Employment and Society.
24 (4): 775-86.
- Clark, T. and Heath, A. (2014). Hard Times: the Diverse Toll of the Economic Slump.
New Haven and London. Yale University Press.
- Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (1997). The Managerial State: Power, Politics and
Ideology in the Remaking of Social Welfare. London. Sage Publications Ltd.
- Clifton, H. (2013). Drowning in debt: how irresponsible lenders are creating a tidal
wave of misery. Church Action on Poverty. (Online). Available at: http://www.church-
poverty.org.uk/news/pressroom/resources/reports/drowningindebtpdf. (Accessed
16/10/16).
- Clifton, J., Comin, F. and Fuentes, D.D. (2003). Privatisation in the European Union:
Public Enterprises and Integration. Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Cohen, S. (2001). States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Coleman, R., Sim, J., Tombs, S. and Whyte, D. (2009). Introduction: State, Power,
Crime. In: Coleman, R., Sim, J., Tombs, S. and Whyte, D (eds). State Power Crime.
London: SAGE Publications Ltd: 1-20.
- Collins, H., Ewing, K.D. and McColgan, A. (2012). Labour Law. Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press.
- Crisis. (2012). Single homeless people’s experiences of the Work Capability
Assessment. Crisis. (Online). Available at:
http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/Crisis%20WCA%20Report.pdf.
(Accessed 24/10/16).
- Croall, H. (2001). Understanding White Collar Crime. Philadelphia. Open University
Press.
- Crouch, C. (2004). Post-Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press Ltd.
38
- Darton, R., Baumker, T., Callaghan, L., Holder, J., Netten, A. and Towers, A. (2012).
The characteristics of residents in extra care housing and care homes in England.
Health and Social Care in the Community. 20 (1): 87-96.
- Decalmer, P. (1993). Clinical presentation. In: Declamer, P. and Glendenning, F.
(eds). The Mistreatment of Elderly People. London. Sage Publications: 35-61.
- Deflem, M. (2015). Comparative historical analysis in criminology and criminal
justice. In: Copes, H. and Miller, J.M. (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Qualitative
Criminology. New York. Routledge: 63-73.
- Deloitte. (2016). Restructuring Service Sector Outlook Series: Bringing industry
challenges to the surface. Adult Social Care – In Troubled Water. (Online). Available
at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/corporate-
finance/deloitte-uk-rs-outlook-2016-adult-social-care.pdf. (Accessed 23/09/16).
- Department for Work and Pensions. (2013). Work Programme Official Statistics to
June 2013. London. Department for Work and Pensions.
- Department for Work and Pensions. (2014). The Work Capability Assessment: A call
for evidence – tell us what you think. Year 5 report. Department for Work and
Pensions. (Online). Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/320504
/wca-5th-call-for-evidence-easy-read.pdf. (Accessed 24/10/16).
- Department for Work and Pensions. (2015a). Mortality Statistics: Employment and
Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance. (Online).
Available at:
http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/459106/
mortality-statisitics-esa-ib-sda.pdf. (Accessed 27/09/16).
- Department for Work and Pensions. (2015b). Decision Makers Guide. (Online).
Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470852
/dmgch35.pdf. (Accessed 10/10/16).
- Department of Health. (2000). No Secrets: Guidance on Developing and
Implementing Multi-agency Policies and Procedures to Protect Vulnerable Adults
from Abuse. London. Department of Health.
- Department of Health. (2014). Guide to the Care Act 2014 and the implications for
providers. (Online). Available at:
http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/6869714/L14-
759+Guide+to+the+Care+Act.pdf/d6f0e84c-1a58-4eaf-ac34-a730f743818d.
(Accessed 23/09/16).
- Disabled People against Cuts. (2012). What’s your Experience of Atos/Work
Capability Assessments (WCA)? Disabled People against Cuts. (Online). Available
at: http://www.dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/final-wca-surveydpac-1.pdf.
(Accessed 24/10/16).
- Domingos, S. (2014). The Impact of Austerity Measures on People and Local
Government. Bloomington, IN. Author House.
- Donovan, T. and Wynne-Harley, D. (1986). Not a Nine to Five Job. London. Centre
for Policy on Ageing.
39
- Downey, R. (1991). Waiting for parity. Social Work Today. 13 June: 9.
- Doyal, L. and Gough, I. (1991). A Theory of Human Need. Basingstoke. Macmillan.
- Drakeford, M. (2000). Privatisation and Social Policy. Harlow. Pearson Education
Limited.
- Drug Scope. (2012). The Work Capability Assessment – A Call for Evidence: Year 2
Independent Review, September 2012. London. UK Drug Policy Commission.
(Online). Available at:
http://www.release.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/Release
%20submission.pdf. (Accessed 24/10/16).
- Durkeim, E. (1897). Suicide. New York. Free Press.
- Duterte, S. (1984). Linkages Vital Between Politics and Mental Health. In: Nann,
R.C., Butt, D.S. and Ladrido-Ignacio, C. (eds). Mental Health, Cultural Values, and
Social Development: A Look into the 80’s. 4th Edition. Dordrecht. Springer-Science +
Business Media, B.V, pp, 180-83.
- Eastman, M. (1984). Old Age Abuse. Mitcham: Age Concern England.
- Edyvane, D. (2013). Civic Virtue and the Sovereignty of Evil. New York. Routledge.
- Embargo. (2013). The People’s Review of the Work Capability Assessment: Further
Evidence. Embargo. (Online). Available at:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/files/peoples_review_of_the_wca_-
_further_evidence_december_2013.pdf. (Accessed 24/10/16).
- Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2011). Close to Home, an inquiry into
older people and human rights in homecare. London. EHRC.
- Farnsworth, K. (2004). Corporate Power and Social Policy in a Global Economy.
Bristol: Policy Press.
- Farnsworth, K. (2012). Social versus Corporate Welfare: Competing Needs and
Interests within the Welfare State. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Farnsworth, K. (2015). The British Corproate Welfare State: Public Provision for
Private Business. Economy Research Institute. 24: 1-42.
- Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Field, F. and Forsey, A. (2016). Fixing Broken Britain? An audit of working-age
welfare reform since 2010. London. Civitas.
- Fitzpatrick, S., Bramley, G., Sosenko, F., Blenkinsopp, J., Johnsen, S., Littlewood.,
M., Netto, G. and Watts, B. (2016). Destitution in the UK. Joseph Roundtree
Foundation. (Online). Available at: file://C:/Users/User/Downloads/report_final-26-
4.pdf. (Accessed 04/10/16).
- Fletcher, D.R. (2015). Workfare – a Blast from the Past? Contemporary Work
Conditionality for the Unemployed in Historical Perspective. Social Policy and
Society. 14 (3): 329-339.
- Folbre, N. (2006). Nursebots to the rescue: Immigration, automation, and care.
Globalizations. 3 (3): 349-60.
40
- Fooks, G., Gilmore, A., Collin, J., Holden, C. and Lee, K. (2013). The Limits of
Corporate Social Responsibility: Techniques of Neutralization, Stakeholder
Management and Political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics. 112: 283-99.
for distributing hospital funds in England. Interfaces. 27 (1): 53–70.
- Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978‐
79.
- Franklin, B. (2015). The end of formal adult social care: A provocation by ICC-UK.
Age UK. Love Later Life. (Online). Available at: www.ageuk.org/Documents/EN-
GB/For-professionals/Research/The_end_of_formal_social_care.pdf?dtrk=true.
(Accessed 26/08/16).
- Friedrichs, D. (1996). Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in Contemporary
Society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Gamble, A. (2001). Neo-liberalism. Capital and Class. 25 (3): 127-134.
- Gardiner, L. (2015). The scale of minimum wage underpayment in social care.
Resolution Foundation Briefing. (Online). Available at:
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/NMW-social-care-
note1.pdf. (Accessed 23/09/16).
- Garthwaite, K. (2013). Fear of the Brown Envelope: Exploring Welfare Reform with
Long-Term Sickness Benefits Recipients. Social Policy and Administration. 48 (7):
782-798.
- Gewirth, A. (1978). Reason and Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Glasbeek, H. (2013). Contortions of Corporate Law: James Hardie Reveals Cracks in
Liberal Law’s Armour. Australian Journal of Corporate Law. 27: 132-67.
- Glendenning, F. (1997). What is Elder Abuse and Neglect? In: Decalmer, P. and
Glendenning, F. (eds). The Mistreatment of Elderly People. 2nd Edition. London. Sage
Publications: 13-41.
- Glendinning, C. (2012). Home care in England: markets in the context of under-
funding. Health and Social Care in the Community. Vol 20 (3), pp, 292-299.
- Gobert, J. and Punch, M. (2003). Rethinking Corporate Crime. London. Butterworths.
- Green, P. and Ward, T. (2004). State Crime: Governments, Violence and Corruption.
London: Pluto.
- Greener, J. (2015). Embedded neglect, entrenched abuse: market failure and
mistreatment in elderly residential care. In: Irving, Z., Fenger, M. and Hudson, J.
(eds). Social Policy Review 27: Analysis and debate in social policy, 2015. Bristol.
Social Policy Association.
- Griffiths, T. and Patterson, T. (2014). Work Capability Assessment concerns. Journal
of Poverty and Social Justice. 22 (1): 59-70.
- Griggs, J. and Evans, M. (2010). Sanctions within conditional benefit systems: A
review of evidence. Joseph Roundtree Foundation. (Online). Available at:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/conditional-benefit-systems-
full.pdf. (Accessed 02/10/16).
41
- Gross, E. (1978). Organizational Crime: A Theoretical Perspective. In: Denzin, N.K.
(eds). Studies in Symbolic Interaction. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 55-85.
- Hansen, R.A. (1999). Against social solidarity and citizenship: justifying social
provision in Britain and France. In: Bussemaker, J. (eds). Citizenship and Welfare
State Reform in Europe. London. Routledge: 27-41.
- Harris, N. (2013). Law in a Complex State: Complexity in the Law and Structure of
Welfare. Oxford. Hart Publishing Ltd.
- Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hatcher, R. (2000). Getting down to business. Paper presented at conference on
‘Privatisierung des Bildungsbereichs. University of Hamburg.
- Hausman, D.M. (2015). Valuing Health: Well-Being, Freedom, and Suffering. Oxford.
Oxford University Press.
- Hay, C. and Watson, M. (1999). Labour’s Economic Policy: Studiously Courting
Competence. In: Taylor, G.R. (eds). The Impact of New Labour. London. Macmillan:
149-162.
- Hayek, F.A. (2011). The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition. Abingdon,
Oxon. Routledge.
- Hemingway, L. (2011). Disabled People and Housing: Choices, opportunities and
barriers. Bristol. The Policy Press.
- Hertz, N. (2001). The Silent Take Over: Global Capitalism and the Death of
Democracy. New York: Free Press.
- Hickey, T. and Douglas, R.L. (1981). Neglect and abuse of older family members:
professionals’ perspectives and case experiences. The Gerontologist. 21 (1): 171-6.
- Hieda, T. (2012). Political Institutions and Elderly Care Policy: Comparative Politics of
Long-Term Care in Advanced Democracies. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Hillyard, P. and Tombs, S. (2004). Beyond Criminology? In: Hillyard, P., Pantazis, C.,
Tombs, S. and Gordon, D. (eds). Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm Seriously.
London: Pluto Press: 10-29.
- Hillyard, P. and Tombs, S. (2007). From ‘crime’ to social harm? Crime Law and Social
Change. 48: 9-25.
- Hillyard, P., Pantazis, C., Tombs, S. and Gordon, D. (2004). Introduction. In: Hillyard,
P., Pantazis, C., Tombs, S. and Gordon, D. (eds). Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm
Seriously. London: Pluto Press: 1-9.
- Hodges, D.C. (1972). Marx’s Theory of Value. Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research. 33 (2): 249-258.
- Holden, C. (2011). Commercial Welfare. In: Alcock, P., May, M. and Wright, S. (eds).
The Student’s Companion to Social Policy. 4th Edition. Chichester. Wiley-Blackwell:
209-214.
- House of Commons Health Select Committee. (1996). Allocation of Resources to
Health
42
- House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee. (2014). The role of Jobcentre
Plus in the reformed welfare system. Second Report of Session 2013-14. House of
Commons Work and Pensions Committee. (Online). Available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/479/479.pdf.
(Accessed 20/10/16).
- Howarth, J. and Morrison, T. (1999). Effective Staff Training in Social Care: From
theory to practice. London. Routledge.
- Hughes, P. and Ferrett, E. (2016). Introduction to Health and Safety in Construction.
Abingdon, Oxon. Routledge.
- Hulsman, L. (1986). Critical Criminology and the Concept of Crime. In: Bianchi, H.
and van Swaaningen, R. (eds). Abolitionism. Towards a Non-Repressive Approach to
Crime. Amsterdam: Free University Press.
- Human Rights Watch. (2013). World Report: 2013 Events of 2012. United States of
America. Human Rights Watch. (Online). Available at:
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2013_web.pdf. (12/06.16).
- Hussein, S. (2011). Estimating Probabilities and Numbers of Direct Care Workers
Paid under the Neoliberal Minimum Wage in the UK: A Bayesian Approach. Social
Care Workforce Periodical Issue 16. London. Kings College London.
- Independent. Morrison, S. and Merrick, J. (2012). Exclusive: A4e and a £200m back-
to-work scandal. (Online). Available at:
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-a4e-and-a-200m-back-to-work-
scandal-7440966.html#. (Accessed 14/09/16).
- Independent. Stone, J. (2015). Budget 2015: Public sector pay rises to be capped at
1 per cent for another four years, George Osbourne announces. (Online). Available
at: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/public-sector-pay-rises-to-be-capped-at-
1-per-cent-for-another-four-years-osbourne-announces-10374990.html. (Accessed
14/09/16).
- Jamieson, R. and McEvoy, K. (2005). State Crime by Proxy and Juridical Othering.
The British Journal of Criminology. 45: 504-527.
- Jessop, B. (1990). State Theory: Putting Capitalist States in their Place. Cambridge:
Polity
- Jones, M., Jones, R., Woods, M., Whitehead, M., Dixon, D. and Hannah, M. (2015).
An Introduction to Political Geography: Space, Place and Politics. 2nd Edition.
Abingdon, Oxon. Routledge.
- Jordan, B. and Drakeford, M. (2013). Social Work and Social Policy under Austerity.
Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Kauzlarich, D. and Mathews, R.A. (2006). Taking Stock of Theory and Research. In:
Michalowski, R.J. and Kramer, R.C. (eds). State-Corporate Crime: Wrongdoing at the
Intersection of Business and Government. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London:
Rutgers University Press: 239-50.
- Keeping, C. (2014). The Process Required for Effective Interprofessional Working. In:
Thomas, J., Pollard, K.C. and Sellman, D. (eds). Interprofessional Working in Health
and Social Care: Professional Perspectives. 2nd Edition. Basingstoke. Palgrave
Macmillan: 22-34.
43
- Kennelly, B. and Connolly, S. (2012). Men, suicide and society: an economic
perspective. In: Wyllie, C., Platt, S., Brownile, J., Chandler, A., Connolly, S., Evans,
R., Kennelly, B., Kirtley, O., Moore, G., O’Conner, R. and Scourfield, J. (eds). Men,
Suicide and Society: Why disadvantaged men in mid-life die by suicide. Samaritans
Research Report. (Online). Available at:
www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/press/Men%20Suicide%20and
%20Society%20Research%20Report%20151112.pdf. (Accessed 04/10/16): 73-90.
- Kimsey, L.R., Tarbox, A.R. and Bragg, D.F. (1981). Abuse of the elderly: the hidden
agenda 1. The caretakers and the categories of abuse. American Geriatrics Society
Journal. 29: 465-72.
- Kimsey, L.R., Tarbox, A.R. and Bragg, D.F. (1981). Abuse of the elderly: the hidden
agenda 1. The caretakers and the categories of abuse. American Geriatrics Society
Journal. 29: 465-72.
- Kleinig, J. (1978). Crime and the Concept of Harm. American Philosophical
Quarterly. 15 (1): 27-36.
- Krajewski, M. (2014). Human rights and austerity programmes. In: Cottier, T., Lastra,
R.M., Tietje, C. and Satrange, C. (eds). The Rule of Law in Monetary Affairs: World
Trade Forum. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
- Kramer, R.C. and Michalowski, R.J. (1990). Toward an Integrated Theory of State-
Corporate Crime. Paper presented at a meeting of the American Society of
Criminology. Baltimore, MD, November.
- Kreitman, N., Carstairs, V. and Duffy, M. (1991). Association of age and social class
with suicide among men in Great Britain. Journal of Epistemological and Community
Health. 45: 195-202.
- Laing and Buisson. (2012). The Role of Private Equity in UK Health & Care Services.
London: Laing and Buisson.
- Laing, W. (2014). Strategic Commissioning of Long Term Care For Older People:
Can We Get More For Less? LaingBuisson: The healthcare experts. (Online).
Available at:
https://www.laingbuisson.co.uk/Portals/1/Media_Packs/Fact_Sheets/LaingBuisson_
White_Paper_LongTermCare.pdf. (Accessed 23/09/16).
- Lane, J.E. and Ersson, S. (2002). Government and the Economy: A Global
Perspective. London. Continuum.
- Langman, C. (2012). Introduction to Vocational Rehabilitation: Policies, practices and
skills. New York. Routledge.
- Lavalette, M. and Penketh, L. (2003). The Welfare State in the United Kingdom. In:
Aspaler, C. (eds). Welfare Capitalism around the World. Taichung City, Taiwan: Casa
Verde Publishing: 61-86.
- Lee, D. (2015). Internships, Workfare, and the Cultural Industries: A British
Perspective. Triple C. 13 (2): 459-470.
- Leonard, E.B. (2015). Crime, Inequality, and Power. New York. Routledge.
- Leone, J.E. (2012). Concepts in Male Health: Perspectives Across the Lifespan. San
Francisco. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
44
- Lewis, J. (2001). Older People and the UK: Half a Century of Hidden Policy Conflict.
Social Policy and Administration. 35 (4): 343-359.
- Lewis, J.E. (1998). Gender, social care, and welfare state restructuring in Europe.
Farnham. Ashgate.
- Lindblom, C.E. (1977). Politics and markets: the world’s political economic systems.
New York. Basic Books.
- Lindblom, C.E. (1982). The Market as Prison. The Journal of Politics. 44 (2): 324-
336.
- Litchfield, P. (2013). An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment –
year four. London. The Stationary Office.
- Lopez, S.H. (1998). Nursing home privatization: What is the human cost? Harrisburg,
P.A. Keystone Research Centre.
- Ludlow, A. (2015). Privatising Public Prisons: Labour Law and the Public
Procurement. London. Bloomsbury Publishing.
- Lundin, A. and Hemmingsson, T. (2009). Unemployment and suicide. Lancet. Vol 374
(9686): 270-271.
- MacDonald, C.L. and Merrill, D.A. (2002). It shouldn’t have to be a trade: recognition
and redistribution in care work advocacy. Hypatia. 17 (2): 67-83.
- Mail Online. Greenhill, S. and Martin, D. (2012). Four former staff of Cameron’s ‘back
to work’ tsar arrested in major exaltation of fraud inquiry. (Online). Available at:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104539/Emma-Harrison-4-staff-David-Camerons-
work-tsar-arrested-fraud-inquiry.html. (Accessed 14/09/16).
- Maris, R.W., Berman, A.L. and Silverman, M.M. (2000). Comprehensive Textbook of
Suicidology. New York. The Guilford Press.
- Marriot, A. (1997). The Psychology of Elder Abuse and Neglect. In: Decalmer, P. and
Glendenning, F. (eds). The Mistreatment of Elderly People. 2nd Edition. London. Sage
Publications: 129-140.
- Martin, V., Charlesworth, J. and Henderson, E. (2010). Managing in Health and
Social Care. 2nd Edition. New York. Routledge.
- Mason, M. (2008). The Governance of Transnational Environmental Harm:
Addressing New Modes of Accountability. Global Environmental Politics. 8 (3): 8-24.
- Mathews, R.A. (2006). Ordinary Business in Germany. In: Michalowski, R.J. and
Kramer, R.C. (eds). State-Corporate Crime: Wrongdoing at the Intersection of
Business and Government. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers
University Press: 116-133.
- McCartney, G. (2014). Making a bad situation worse? The impact of welfare reform
and the economic recession on health and health inequalities in Scotland. NHS
Health Scotland. (Online). Available at:
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0044/00448581.pdf. (Accessed 16/10/16).
- McDonald, A. (2010). Social Work with Older People. Cambridge. Polity Press.
45
- McDonald, M. and Wearing, S. (2013). Social Psychological and Theories of
Consumer Choice: A Political Economy Perspective. Hove, East Sussex. Routledge.
- Mendoza, K.A. (2015). Austerity: The Demolition of the Welfare State and the Rise of
the Zombie Economy. Oxford. New Internationalist Publications Ltd.
- Michalowski, R.J. (1985). Order, Law, and Crime. New York: Random House.
- Michalowski, R.J. and Kramer, R.C. (2006). Enron-Era Economics versus Economic
Democracy. In: Michalowski, R.J. and Kramer, R.C. (eds). State-Corporate Crime:
Wrongdoing at the Intersection of Business and Government. New Brunswick, New
Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press: 172-185.
- Michalowski, R.J. and Kramer, R.C. (2006). Preface. In: Michalowski, R.J. and
Kramer, R.C. (eds). State-Corporate Crime: Wrongdoing at the Intersection of
Business and Government. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers
University Press: ix-xi.
- Michalowski, R.J. and Kramer, R.C. (2006). The Critique of Power. In: Michalowski,
R.J. and Kramer, R.C. (eds). State-Corporate Crime: Wrongdoing at the Intersection
of Business and Government. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers
University Press: 1-17.
- Mind. (2014). We’ve got work to do: Transforming employment and back-to-work
support for people with mental health problems. London. Mind. (Online). Available at:
http://www.mind.org.uk/media.1690126/weve_got_work_to_do.pdf. (Accessed
27/09/16).
- Mitchell, D. (1991). The long and short of it. Community Care. 7 November: 8.
- Mitchell, L.E. (2001). Corporate Irresponsibility: America’s Newest Export. New
Haven. Yale University Press.
- Monbiot, G. (2001). Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain. London:
Macmillan.
- Morgen, S., Acker, J. and Weigt, J. (2010). Stretched Thin: Poor Families, Welfare
Work, and Welfare Reform. New York. Cornell University Press.
- Morrison, J. (2013). Essential Public Affairs for Journalists. 3rd Edition. Oxford. Oxford
University Press.
- Mortimer, J. and Green, M. (2015). Briefing: The Health and Care of Older People in
England 2015. Age UK: Love Later Life. (Online). Available at:
www.cpa.org.uk/cpa/docs/AgeUK-Briefing-
TheHealthandCareofOlderPeopleinEnglan-2015.pdf. (Accessed 02/09/16).
- Munchie, J. (2000). Decriminalising criminology. In: Lewis, G., Gerwitz, S. and
Clarke, J. (eds). Rethinking Social Policy. London: Sage.
- Munro Wright, J. (2014). Unfair Dismissal Law. 4th Edition. London. www.lulu.com.
(Online). Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?
id=kYW2BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA277&dq=Enterprise+and+Regulatory+Reform+Bill+(201
3),&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzzpyHmaHPAhVElxoKHSKlBLwQ6AEIITAA#v=one
page&q=Enterprise%20and%20Regulatory%20Reform%20Bill
%20(2013)%2C&f=false. (Accessed 21/09/16).
46
- Nash, K. (2010). Contemporary Political Sociology: Globalization, Politics, and
Power. 2nd Edition. Chichester. Blackwell.
- National Aids Trust. (2015). Employment and Support Allowance and the Work
Capability Assessment. (Online). Available at:
http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/Jan_2015_ESA.pdf. (Accessed
24/10/16).
- National Audit Office. (2016). Contracted-out health and disability assessments.
Department for Work and Pensions. (Online). Available at:
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Contracted-out-health-and-
disability-assessments.pdf. (Accessed 24/10/16).
- Naylor, C., Parsonage, M., McDaid, D., Knapp, M., Fossey, M. and Galea, A. (2012).
Long-term conditions and mental health: the cost of co-morbidities. The Kings Fund.
(Online). Available at:
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/long-term-
conditions-mental-health-cost-comorbidities-naylor-feb12.pdf. (Accessed 23/09/16).
- Nersessian, D.L. (2010). Genocide and Political Groups. Oxford. Oxford University
Press.
- News Item. (2011). Troubled Southern Cross to close after landlords abandon group
– Telegraph. (Online). Available at: loguk.typepad.com/life/2011/07/troubled-
southern-cross-to-close-after-landlords-abandon-group-telegraph.html. (Accessed
09/09/16).
- Nussbaum, M.C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach.
Cambridge, MA. Belknap Press.
- O’Hara, M. (2015). Austerity Bites: A Journey to the Sharp End of the Cuts in the UK.
Bristol. Policy Press.
- Office for National Statistics (2015) Suicides in the United Kingdom, 2013
Registrations. Statistical Bulletin. (Online). Available at:
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/suicides-inthe-united-kingdom/2013-
registrations/suicides-in-theunited-kingdom--2013-registrations.html. (Accessed
16/10/16).
- Packer, M. (2011). The Science of Qualitative Research. Cambridge. Cambridge
University Press.
- Pantazis, C. and Pemberton, S. (2009). Nation States and the Production of Social
Harm: Resisting the Hegemony of ‘TINA.’ In: Coleman, R., Sim, J., Tombs, S. and
Whyte, D (eds). State Power Crime. London: SAGE Publications Ltd: 214-233.
- Parker, J. (1998). Citizenship, Work and Welfare: Searching for the Good Society.
London. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Payne, B.K. (2005). Crime and Elder Abuse: An Integrated Perspective. Springfield,
IL. Charles C Thomas Publisher Ltd.
- Paz-Fuchs, A. (2008). Welfare to Work: Conditional Rights in Social Policy. Oxford.
Oxford University Press.
- Pearce, F. (1976). Crimes of the Powerful: Marxism, Crime and Deviance. London:
Pluto Press.
47
- Pearce, F. and Tombs, S. (1998). Toxic Capitalism: Corporate Crime and the
Chemical Industry. Aldershot: Ashgate.
- Pemberton, S. (2015). Harmful Societies: Understanding Social Harm. Bristol. Policy
Press.
- Petrakis, P.E., Kostis, P.C. and Valsamis, D.G. (2013). European Economics and
Politics in the Midst of the Crisis: From the Outbreak of the Crisis to the Fragmented
European Federation. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht and London. Springer.
- Phillipson, C. (1997). Abuse of older people: Sociological Perspectives. In: Decalmer,
P. and Glendenning, F. (eds). The Mistreatment of Elderly People. 2nd Edition.
London. Sage Publications: 102-115.
- Pierson, J.H. (2016). Talking Poverty and Social Exclusion: Promoting Social Justice
in Social Work. New York. Routledge.
- Pilkington, M. (2014). The Global Financial Crisis and the New Monetary Consensus.
New York. Routledge.
- Pollock, J.M. (2014). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. 8th Editon.
Belmont, CA. Cengage Learning.
- Price, D., Pollock, A. and Shaoul, J. (1999). How the World Trade Organization is
Shaping Domestic Policies in Health Care. The Lancet. 354: 1889-92.
- Prichard, J. (1997). Vulnerable People Taking Risks: Older People and Residential
Care. In: Kemshall, H. and Prichard, J. (eds). Good Practice in Risk Assessment and
Risk Management (2) Protection, Rights and Responsibilities. London. Jessica
Kingsley.
- Reiman, J. (1998). The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. Ideology, Class
and Criminal Justice. 5th Ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
- Ribeiro, J.D. and Joiner, T.E. (2011). Present status and future prospects take up the
interpersonal-psychological theory of suicidal behaviour. In: O’Conner, R.C., Platt, S.
and Gordon, J. (eds). International handbook of suicide prevention: Research, policy
and practice. New Jersey. John Wiley and Sons Ltd: 181-198.
- Ribinstein, W.D. (2004). Genocide: A History. New York. Routledge.
- Richardson, J.C. (2001). Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and
Power. London. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
- Rogers, A. and Pilgrim, D. (2003). Mental Health and Inequality. Basingstoke.
Palgrave Macmillan.
- Ross, I. (2016). Exposing Fraud: Skills, Process and Practices. Chichester. Wiley.
- Rowley, J. (2002). Using Case Studies in Research. Management Research News.
25 (1): 16-27.
- Russell, S. and Gilbert, M.J. (1999). Truman’s revenge: Social control and corporate
crime. Crime, Law and Social Change. 32 (1): 59-82.
- Sayer, A. (1995). Radical Political Economy. A Critique. Oxford: Blackwell.
48
- Sayer, A. and Wilkinson, R. (2016). Why We Can’t Afford the Rich. Bristol. Policy
Press.
- Schwendinger, H. and Schwendinger, J. (1975). Defenders of order or guardians of
human rights? In: Taylor, I., Walton, P. and Young, J. (eds). Critical Criminology.
London: Routledge.
- Scowcroft, E. (2015). Suicide Statistics Report 2015. Samaritans. (Online). Available
at: http://www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/branches/branch-
96/files/Suicide_statistics_report_2015.pdf. (Accessed 16/10/16).
- Shah, S.M., Carey, I.M., Harris, T., DeWilde, S., Hubbard, R., Lewis, S. and Cook,
D.G. (2010). Identifying the clinical characteristics of older people living in care
homes using a novel approach in a primary care database. Age and Aging. 20 (5):
617-23.
- Simon, T.W. (2007). The Laws of Genocide: Prescriptions for a Just World. Westport,
CT. Greenwood Press.
- Sinclair, S. (2016). Introduction to Social Policy Analysis: Illuminating welfare. Bristol.
Policy Press.
- Skills for Care. (2015). The state of the adult social care workforce in England.
Leeds. Skills for Care.
- Sklar, M. (1988) 1991. The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890-
1916. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Slater, T. (2012). The Myth of “Broken Britain”: Welfare Reform and the Production of
Ignorance. Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography. 46 (4): 948-969.
- Streifer, B. and Barr, R. (2008). Plausible Deniability. New York. Jia Educational
Products, Incorporated.
- Sutherland, E.H. (1949). White Collar Crime. New York: Dryden Press.
- The Guardian. Bawden, A. and Alcock, R. (2011). Care homes in the balance as
Southern Cross struggles. (Online). Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/may/25/southern-cross-care-homes-in-
balance. (Accessed 09/09/16).
- The Guardian. Butler, P. (2015). Thousands have died after being found fit for work,
DWP figures show. (Online). Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-died-after-fit-for-work-
assessment-dwp-figures. (Accessed 26/10/16).
- The Guardian. Syal, R. (2016). Maximus miss fitness-to-work test targets despite
spiralling costs. (Online). Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/08/maximus-miss-fitness-to-work-test-
targets-despite-spiralling-costs. (Accessed 18/10/16).
- The Telegraph. Peacock, L. (2010). Apprentice minimum wage may see employers
hire fewer young people. (Online). Available at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/7843682/Apprentice-minimum-wage-may-
see-employers-hire-fewer-young-people.html. (Accessed 21/09/16).
49
- Thompson, P. (2013). Financialization and the workplace: extending and applying the
disconnected capitalism thesis. Work, Employment and Society. 27 (3): 472-88.
- Thompson, P. and Smith, C. (2009). Labour process theory and critical realism. In:
Thompson, P. and Smith, C. (eds). Working Life: Renewing Labour Process Analysis:
Critical Perspectives on Work and Employment. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Tombs, S. and Hillyard, P. (2004). Towards a Political Economy of Harm: States,
Corporations and the Production of Inequality. In: Hillyard, P., Pantazis, C., Tombs, S.
and Gordon, D. (eds). Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm Seriously. London: Pluto
Press: 30-54.
- Tombs, S. and Whyte, D. (2004). Corporations beyond the law? Regulation, risk and
corporate crime in a globalised era. Risk Management. 5 (2): 9-16.
- Tombs, S. and Whyte, D. (2004). Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Towards
Accountability for Workplace Deaths? Policy and Politics in Occupational Health and
Safety. 1 (1).
- Tombs, S. and Whyte, D. (2008). A Crisis of Enforcement: The Decriminalisation of
Death and Injury at Work. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
- Tombs, S. and Whyte, D. (2009). The State and Corporate Crime. . In: Coleman, R.,
Sim, J., Tombs, S. and Whyte, D (eds). State Power Crime. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd: 103-115.
- Tombs, S. and Whyte, D. (2015). The Corporate Criminal: Why corporations must be
abolished. Abingdon, Oxon. Routledge.
- Tomlinson, M.W. (2012). War, peace and suicide: the case of Northern Ireland.
International Sociology. 27 (4): 464-482.
- Totten, S. and Bartrop, P.R. (2008). Dictionary of Genocide: Volume Two: M-Z.
Westport, CT. Greenwood Press.
- Townsend, P. (1981). The structured dependency of the elderly: a creation of social
policy in the twentieth century. Aging and Society. 1 (1): 5-28.
- Toynbee, P. and Walker, D. (2015). Cameron’s Coup: How the Tories Took Britain to
the Brink. London. Guardian Faber Publishing.
- Tyler, I. (2013). Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal
Britain. London: Zed Books.
- Ugwumada, F.U.A. (2011). Reconstruction of Social Work Through Personalisation:
the need for policy and practice shift in social care: family directed support care
systems. Milton Keynes. AuthorHouse.
- Unison. (2013). Time to care: A UNISON report into homecare. (Online). Available at:
http://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2013/11/On-line-Catalogue220152.pdf.
(Accessed 31/08/16).
- Ward, T. (2004). State Harms. In: Hillyard, P., Pantazis, C., Tombs, S. and Gordon, D.
(eds). Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm Seriously. London: Pluto Press: 84-100.
- Watts, B. (2014). Homelessness, empowerment and self-reliance in Scotland and
Ireland: the impact of legal rights to housing for homeless people. Journal of Social
Policy. 43 (4): 793-810.
50
- Watts, B., Fitzpatrick, S., Bramley, G. and Watkins, D. (2014). Welfare Sanctions and
Conditionality in the UK. Joseph Roundtree Foundation (Online). Available at:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/Welfare-conditionality-UK-
Summary.pdf. (Accessed 03/10/16).
- White, A. (2016). Shadow State: Inside the Secret Companies that Run Britain.
London. Oneworld Publications.
- Whittaker, T. (1997). Rethinking Elder Abuse: Towards an Age and Gender Integrated
Theory of Elder Abuse. In: Decalmer, P. and Glendenning, F. (eds). The Mistreatment
of Elderly People. 2nd Edition. London. Sage Publications: 116-128.
- Whyte, D. (2004). Regimes of Permission. State Crime. 3 (2): 237-46.
- Whyte, D. (2004). Regulation and Corporate Crime. In: Muncie, J. and Wilson, D.
(eds). Student Handbook of Criminal Justice. London: Cavendish: 134-48.
- Whyte, D. (2007). Victims of Corporate Crime. In: Walklate, S. (eds). A Handbook of
Victimology. Collompton: Willan: 446-64.
- Whyte, D. (2009). Crimes of the Powerful: A Reader. Maidenhead: Open University
Press.
- Whyte, D. (2015). Policing for Whom? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice.54 (1).
- Wiggan, J. (2011). Something old and blue, or red, bold and new? Welfare reform
and the Coalition government. In: Holden, C., Kilkey, M. and Ramia, G. (eds). Social
Policy Review 23: Analysis and debate in social policy, 2011. Bristol. The Policy
Press: 25-44.
- Wiggan, J. (2012). Telling stories of 21st century welfare: The UK Coalition
government and the neo-liberal discourse of worklessness and dependency. Critical
Social Policy. 32 (3): 383-405.
- Williams, S. and Scott, P. (2016). Welfare-to-Work Policy under the Coalition. In:
Williams, S. and Scott, P. (eds). Employment Relations under Coalition Government:
The UK Experience, 2010-2015. Abingdon, Oxon. Routledge.
- Wonders, N, and Solop, F. (1993). Understanding the Emergence of Law and Public
Policy: Toward a Relational Model of the State. In: Chambliss, W. and Zatz, M. (eds).
Bloomington: Indiana University Press: 204-225.
- Wright Mills, C. (1956). The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Wright Mills, C. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford. Oxford University
Press.
- Wright, S. (2012). Welfare-to-work, Agency and Personal Responsibility. Journal of
Social Policy. 41 (2): 309-328.
- Wyllie, C., Platt, S., Brownile, J., Chandler, A., Connolly, S., Evans, R., Kennelly, B.,
Kirtley, O., Moore, G., O’Conner, R. and Scourfield, J. (2012). Men, Suicide and
Society: Why disadvantaged men in mid-life die by suicide. Samaritans Research
Report. (Online). Available at:
www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/press/Men%20Suicide%20and
%20Society%20Research%20Report%20151112.pdf. (Accessed 04/10/16).
51
- Yeates, N. (2001). Globalization and Social Policy. London. Sage Publications.
52
