1|Page
Clare Williams
University of Wolverhampton
Clare.williams@wlv.ac.uk
Big Society, Big Gaps.
The unintended consequences of Big Society on Children and Young People
Abstract
The outcomes of the move towards ‘Big Society’ and localism are likely to vary between
different groups in society. This paper will focus on the likely effects of this shift on
children. Kisby (2010) suggests that those most likely to lose out from the reorganisation of
services and the reduction of the state are those least able to make their needs known,
vulnerable or marginalised groups. Children could be seen as one of these groups; although
social policy in the past 15 years has placed children close to centre stage in social policy
making there are still many arguments about the fact that it is their status as adults that is
important rather than their lives as children (Lister 2003, Hendrick 2005, Parton 2006).
The inclusion of some children’s services in the pathfinder projects to run public services
through mutual organisations of staff show that children’s services will not be a special case
in the ‘big society’ and have prompted concerns about the appropriateness of the agenda in
services for vulnerable children (Leppar 2010). These discussions have not, so far, fully
addressed the wider knock on effect of the ‘Big Society’ agenda for children.
It is these ‘knock on effects’ or unintended consequences of the wider changes brought on by
‘Big Society’ that will form the basis of this paper. It is regularly reported that ‘non core’
services like libraries, parks and leisure facilities will be hit substantially by the public sector
cuts, all of these services are important for children’s development and quality of life (Ridge
2009). In areas of high social capital, advantage (in terms of time and finance) and trust,
these services may continue to provide for the local community through volunteers and
community groups. In more disadvantaged areas it is less clear how much capacity people
will have to maintain these services. In addition to the likely uneven distribution of services
the move to give local people more say over planning and development in their local area
through the proposed Localism Act is likely to result in more objections to projects that are
perceived as posing a threat to the ‘community’ for example youth clubs and children’s
homes (Higgs and Watson 2010). Taken together the unintended consequences of the move
to ‘big society’ are likely to be significant for large numbers of already disadvantaged
children.
2|Page
Big Society, Big Gaps.
The unintended consequences of Big Society on Children and Young People
The impact of the move towards Big Society and the localism that is embedded within it are
likely to vary between different groups in society. This paper will focus on the likely effects
of this shift on children. Kisby (2010) suggests that those most likely to lose out from the
reorganisation of services and the reduction of the state are those least able to make their
needs known, vulnerable or marginalised groups. Children could be seen as one of these
groups; although the Government, in the past 15 years, has placed children close to centre
stage in social policy making their importance has been linked to their status as adults rather
than their lives as children (Lister 2003, Hendrick 2005, Parton 2006). This paper will
briefly explore some of the potential problems of implementation of the Big Society ideal
focusing firstly on the capacity of some deprived communities to step into the extensive role
that the Big Society allocates them and the impact this is likely to have on services that are
available to children; secondly on the concern that some children’s voices will not be heard
by the Big Society. The paper will conclude that the combination of these two issues (among
many others) is likely to have significant negative consequences for many children.
The Big Society
“The Big Society is what happens whenever people work together for the common good. It
is about achieving our collective goals in ways that are more diverse, more local and more
personal” (DCLG 2010). However inspirational this description may be it does not help
enormously in an understanding of what the Big Society is, indeed a poll carried out by the
Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (Acevo 2011) suggests that 78%
of adults and 30% of voluntary sector CEOs are still not clear on what the Big Society is.
Although first discussed by David Cameron in November 2009 the idea and the way the idea
is to be made tangible has continued to evolve. The discussions and speeches linking the Big
3|Page
Society to ‘small Government’ and to the ideas of localism have further helped to clarify the
vision of what it might be.
Kisby (2010) suggests that the key features of the Big Society
relate broadly to empowering communities, redistributing power (away from Government)
and promoting a culture of volunteering. Running alongside these features are traditional
Conservative ideological themes of reducing state involvement, especially in public services,
and increasing personal self reliance, however unlike in previous Conservative Governments,
there is an attempt to frame these ideas in a modern, caring approach (Page 2010). In an
attempt to challenge the ‘nasty party’ image the Conservative approach of Cameron aims to
be compassionate and to ‘fight for the poor’ (Cameron 2009). Instead of reductions in public
services meaning vulnerable groups having to fend for themselves they are framed instead as
an opportunity to empower communities to meet their own needs and create the Big Society.
Through the reports of the Centre for Social Justice the Conservatives, in opposition, framed
Britain as a ‘broken society’ (SJPG 2006) many of the reasons put forward to explain the
‘broken society’ were claimed as being a result of the increase in centralisation and ‘big
Government’ which took place during New Labour’s terms in office. The Big Society has
been formulated as the main way to begin to fix the ‘broken society’ through decentralisation
of knowledge, power and money (DCLG 2010). Cameron made it clear back in 2009
however that this process could not be left to evolve by itself and it was the Government’s
role to ensure that this change happened. This Government led decentralisation is overseen
by the decentralisation minister who will ensure, that local priorities and issues will not be
undermined by central diktats.
In line with many other aspects of the Big Society the move towards decentralisation and
localism is not new and the benefits of localism as a way of bridging the divide between
ordinary people and the political process has been accepted across the political spectrum for a
number of years, with the ideas of consultation and community involvement now required or
expected in almost all policy implementation (Parvin 2009). New Labour’s commitment to
localism was part of a wider aim to shift the balance of Governance; to give local
communities more power and control over the services that impacted on their lives, however
the role of central and local Government was still important at a strategic level (Houghton
and Blume 2011). The localism of the Big Society see’s this strategic role as yet another
4|Page
level of bureaucracy that prevents local people having real power in their local communities,
bureaucracy that the Localism Bill proposes to abolish or severely reduce.
Context
The ideas of Big Society follow on and expand on the work of the previous labour
administrations but they take place in a very different financial climate. The decision to
tackle the UK deficit in a ‘head on’ way resulted in average cuts of 19% across Government
departments in the first Coalition Government spending review; as with all average figures
this conceals the fact that some departments are having to cope with much higher rates of
reductions, including the Department of Communities and local Government which has a
budget cut of 36% over the following four years (Telegraph 2011). The devolution of these
cuts to local Government have meant that difficult decisions about where the cuts need to be
made are being taken at a local level and it is unlikely that these savings can be made without
cutting services. The impact of these cuts will hit the poorest hardest, as users of services and
as workers within the public sector and have been shown to hit women and children
particularly hard (Taylor-Gooby and Stoker 2011), in addition it is claimed that “...the
spending settlements that have been provided by central government for 2011/12 and 2012/13
tend to be less favourable for those local authorities with higher rates of child poverty.” (End
Child Poverty 2011).
Although it has been made clear by the Government that the ‘Big Society’ is not another
word for cuts or a mechanism for disguising cuts (DCLG 2011), it can not be ignored that the
ideas are being rolled out alongside these severe public sector cuts. The development of the
ideas of the Big Society in another economic climate could be seen as encouraging
community to support and guide public services, in the present climate the Big Society, it
seems, will be required in some cases to replace the public sector.
Problems of Evenness
The Big Society will work in two main ways, firstly by the third sector continuing and
expanding the roles and services they currently provide and secondly by individuals and
communities actively taking part to provide services in their local areas. These two elements
are already in place in many areas of the country and held up as examples of how the Big
Society can work (DCLG 2010). The idea that we can move from such small scale projects
5|Page
supporting public services to a coherent Big Society raises important questions. The
problems faced by many third sector organisations largely reliant on Central or Local
Government funding are becoming documented (McCabe 2010, Evans 2011) and there is a
suggestion that many smaller ‘under the radar organisations’ may not have the capacity or the
interest in expanding their services (McCabe 2010). There are questions about the ability of
third sector organisations to continue and expand in the face of the dismantling of the
infrastructure and funding that supports them. Many third sector organisations work well
because of specialist nature of what they do; they are able to specialise in this way because of
the infrastructure provided by strong and well funded public services, the removal of these
services and the money that supports them has already led to the closing of some of the very
services held up by the Government as examples of the Big Society (Leppar 2011, Bell
2011).
In addition to this but perhaps less discussed in the media so far are the issues about the
capacity of local communities and individuals to step in to provide public services; the
dominant vision of the way in which the Big Society will work is one of active communities
with the collective drive and vision to work towards a communal aim, where individuals have
the capacity to attend meetings, take on responsibility and directly deliver services. There is
no doubt that this will represent the experience of some communities but the experiences of
10 years of empowering communities programmes and social capital theory shows that this is
not an accurate portrayal of all communities. The concern here then is one of evenness, or
more importantly the unevenness of services. Empowering eager communities or to be more
precise individual community members to become active in decision making, service
evaluation and service delivery poses challenges (JRF 2011, Mathers et al. 2008), however
where communities are unable or unwilling to take on these responsibilities against a
backdrop of cuts in funding and services the problems become more complex. Where service
provision relies solely on the willingness and ability of the community, for example where
libraries are set to close without ‘the community’ taking them over, the outcome is likely to
be uneven and to disadvantage the most deprived communities the most (Evans 2011).
The idea of communities coming together to identify their own needs and being involved in
meeting these needs are not new, as highlighted earlier the move towards empowering and
strengthening communities had begun under the New Labour Governments of the early
6|Page
2000’s. In the early days of the New Labour administrations the ideas of Etzioni and the
‘new communitarians’ were significant in policy formation and although this gave way to
more general discussions of the importance of social capital, ideas about strengthening
community and community cohesion continued to influence thinking around community
policy. The terms of communitarianism and Social Capital are not used extensively by the
new Coalition Government but the websites of the Centre for Social Justice and the
Department of Communities and Local Government refer extensively to community cohesion
and community empowerment. The difference in the Coalition Government’s approach is
the idea that not only can community become involved in decision making but as part of the
Big Society they can / are expected to take on the responsibility of delivering and monitoring
services.
The literature around social capital theory can provide some important insights into some of
the potential difficulties of implementing the Big Society. In part due to the contested, and
at times vague, nature of the concept of social capital it has been incorporated into a variety
of theoretical viewpoints (Seaman and Sweeting 2004, Koniordos 2008).
Writers like
Coleman and Putnam, following what could be perceived as a socially conservative,
communitarian understanding (Wakefield and Poland 2005 – in Aguilar and Sen 2009) see
increasing social capital as a mechanism for promoting social and community cohesion which
in turn has a number of individual and community wide advantages, this work tends to accept
the wider economic structures and ignore power relations linked to for example gender,
ethnicity and disability (Seaman and Sweeting 2004, Holland et al. 2007). Understanding
social capital in this way leads to expectations that if social capital can be increased in
communities this will improve the levels of civic engagement and community cohesion and
decrease a number of social problems for example educational underachievement, crime and
anti-social behaviour and teenage pregnancy.
In contrast Bourdieu’s (1986 ) more complex
understanding of the term places social capital alongside and linked to other ‘capitals’;
economic, cultural and symbolic, and sees the power imbalance attached to who does and
does not possess these capitals as being central in a process of reproduction of inequalities.
The level of social capital that an individual is able to acquire will be directly linked to their
levels of economic and cultural capital (Gillies and Edwards 2006, Holland et. al.2007).
From this perspective it is easy to see social capital as exclusionary, as a mechanism to
7|Page
maintain privilege (Bourdieu 1986). It is not hard to see why discussions of Putman and
Coleman may be more appealing to policy makers.
The family is central in the debates around increasing social capital. The work of Coleman
(1986) and Putman (2000), place a strong emphasis on the ‘traditional’ family form of two
parents, male breadwinner, female child-carer. The increased diversity in family form and
roles (mostly lone parents and working mothers) is seen by both as being highly influential
in the decrease in social capital at a family and community level and in turn in the
fragmentation of communities (Gillies and Edwards 2006).
The idea of social capital decreasing through women’s paid work outside of the home has
been challenged and a number of studies have shown that paid work often contributes to the
building of social capital (Gillies and Edwards 2006, Seaman and Sweeting 2004). Firstly
paid work often expands the range of social contacts mothers have and may provide
important sources of social support, and secondly in line with Bourdieu’s work (1986) the
economic capital gained through paid work facilitates the development of social capital
through a range of social activities.
This increase in social capital does not, however
necessarily mean that individuals and families will have more commitment to ‘community
development’ work. These studies also highlight that there are many different
understandings of what social capital means and does (Gillies and Edwards 2006, Seaman
and Sweeting 2004) which is particularly significant in understanding the way that Big
Society will operate. The distinction between bridging and bonding (Putnam 2000) and
formal and informal social capital networks (Wuthnow 1998 in Brisson 2009) are important
here as there is evidence of strong informal bonding social capital networks being important
in the day to day lives of many working class families (Brisson 2009, Gillies and Edwards
2006, Seaman and Sweeting 2004), This ‘getting by’ social capital is essential for many
families and takes many forms which could be seen as evidence of the Big Society in action,
for example; shopping for neighbours, borrowing money or goods and informal childcare, but
these things are not necessarily seen as ‘civic action’ just part of day to day life (Gillies and
Edwards 2006, Rutter and Evans 2011). What needs to be considered however is how this
informal ‘helping out’ impacts on families’ ability and capacity to take on any more formal
civic action. As highlighted by Evans (2011) families on low incomes and in deprived areas
often have to work longer hours and have more responsibilities than others and as such may
8|Page
have less capacity to get further involved in the wider aspects of ‘Big Society’ and fill the
gaps in public services in their area.
In addition to issues of ability and capacity a point which seems rarely to be raised by
Government is the fact that individuals may simply not want to get involved in their
community, that their non-participation in community action is a rational choice (Mathers
et.al. 2008) If this point is taken seriously it challenges the basis of Big Society ideas;
individuals and communities are to be given choice and empowered to have a say in their
local areas unless for example they choose to take a passive role, increase council tax or
have more public services. As part of the decentralisation process it is the Government’s
role to “help people make the right choices” (SJPG 2007).
The role of public services is to provide a strategic overview and monitor to ensure that
services are based on need and not on the ability or willingness of ‘community’ to provide
those services. It is too simplistic to suggest then that increasing ‘social capital’ in deprived
areas as New Labour tried to do or by providing the opportunities and removing barriers for
people to get involved will stimulate the Big Society and resolve the day to day problems that
families are faced with or the wider social problems linked with disadvantage (Gamarnikow
and Green 1999). Evidence (JRF 2011) suggests that although there are many successful
community projects in deprived areas, some of which are held up as proof that the ‘Big
Society’ can work, there are many more areas that do not have a coherent or active
community or a community that is willing or interested in ‘getting involved’ (Mathers et.al
2008).
In times of public sector cuts those areas most likely to benefit or manage best are
those with community members with the financial and time resources and the inclination to
step in where the Government steps out, in other areas gaps will appear and be left unfilled.
In a version of Tudor- Hart’s (1971) inverse care law by relying on communities to deliver
their own services those with most need are likely to be in areas with the least services.
Impact of un-evenness of Big Society on Children and Young People
The inclusion of some children’s services in the pathfinder projects to run public services
through mutual organisations of staff show that children’s services will not be a special case
in the Big Society and have prompted concerns about the appropriateness of the agenda in
services for vulnerable children (Leppar 2010). This is only one area of concern however as
9|Page
the effect of the reduction of the state funding on the availability of ‘peripheral services’ like
libraries, leisure centres and play spaces are likely to be significant and the reliance on the
Big Society to fill the gaps left by the state, as shown above, are likely to be uneven. The
reduction of these ‘peripheral services’ are likely to impact on children more than adults and
on poor children more than those from more affluent backgrounds. For children in deprived
areas libraries, public spaces and leisure facilities are essential and should not be seen as
peripheral services as “...children and young people in low income households experience
significant difficulty in gaining access to activities and opportunities outside of their
immediate localities” (Ridge 2009 p.40) In addition, any services that provide free facilities
for example parks and play areas, have an essential role in compensating for the lack of
opportunity to engage in ‘paid for ‘ activities (Sutton et al. 07 08 in Ridge 09).
The potential impact of losing these ‘peripheral services’ can be seen by looking at the
experience of the National Play Strategy (2008). The importance of play in the development
of children and young people and the benefits of access to free play activities for the wider
community are now established in the academic literature and enshrined in article 31 of the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Foley 2008, Davey and Lundy 2011,
DCSF 2008, Ridge 2009,) . Recognising the importance of play the National Play Strategy
developed in 2008 and delivered by Play England was a 10 year strategy with the remit of
developing more spaces for children to play, improving safety in and around the places where
children play, making communities more child friendly and ensuring that children’s views on
and needs for formal and informal play spaces were embedded in local authority planning
(DCSF 2008). The decision by the new Department of Education to withdraw funding for the
strategy after only three years can be seen as both financially and ideologically driven and is
likely to leave gaps that the Big Society may not be able to fill.
Clearly scrapping the strategy will save money, although Voce (2011) suggests that most of
the expensive work has already been completed in the form of capital projects; the second
phase focusing on opening up public spaces and making communities more child-friendly
will cost a lot less (Chandiramani 2011). However if play facilities are seen as peripheral
services the removal of funding is likely to result in many projects being at risk of closure
(Voce 2011). Ideologically the scrapping of the strategy fits well into the decentralisation
agenda of the Big Society as it starts to undo the national strategic control or direction and
10 | P a g e
passes the decisions and responsibilities back to the community level; funding has been made
available from the Department of Education to “...empower communities to take
responsibility for local spaces such as play areas and adventure playgrounds”(Play England
2011). As shown earlier this strategy is likely to leave gaps in many areas and may threaten
the essential facilities that the most deprived children rely on (Ridge 2009, Evans 2011). This
is likely to continue what James and James (2004) identify as a trend to push decisions about
children and ultimately control of children back to a community level and will result in them
having to rely on people who are sympathetic or informed about the importance of good
quality, safe play space for children speaking on their behalf. This takes the discussion on to
issues of whether children’s interests can be best served by their ‘community’.
Community Voice
In addition to the likely uneven distribution of services across geographical areas there is also
a difficultly with the concept of a community voice that is at the heart of localism; the idea
that if brought together the community will be able to work together to identify common
goals and solutions to common problems. As the ideas of localism have become accepted
across political spectrums little attention is paid to the fact that “ [b]ehind the romantic
notions of community lurks the real world of insular ‘not in my own backyard’ politics
(Stoker 2004 p.122). The ideas of ‘New Localism’ put forward by the previous Labour
Governments, especially in the 2008 White paper Communities in Control, real people real
power suggested that more scope for local involvement could be achieved through a shift in
the balance of Governance but still recognised the strategic role of the local authority (Stoker
2004), however the localism put forward as part of the Big Society and in particular through
the Localism Bill takes these ideas a step further by dismantling the ‘big state’ and devolving
budgets and responsibilities (including for service delivery) to a local level while removing
regulatory bodies and strategic planning abilities of local authorities (Evans 2011). This
move has the potential / aim to put significant power in the hands of local majorities,
however as Parvin highlights “[m]inority groups... would suffer genuine and profound
disadvantage in a political system that places power in the hands of local majorities” (2009
p.358). Parvin highlights the fact that for many individuals in the minority in their
community it is not coercive state power that makes their lives difficult but coercive
community action. There are times and places where ‘the community’ are wrong, or
prejudiced, oppressive or uninformed and at these times central decision making is needed to
11 | P a g e
protect the rights of all citizens. Although Parvin’s (2011) work focuses mainly on BME and
gay minorities his ideas can easily be applied to children. Although there are arguments as
to children’s status as a cohesive minority group (James and James 2004, Goldson 2002) it
will be shown below that in terms of having their voices heard and their needs met some
groups of children will be severely disadvantaged by the ‘Big Society’s’ drive for increased
localism.
Children’s voice
One of the foundation stones of the Big Society is empowerment; individuals and
communities having a voice in how and which services are provided, on how money is spent
and saved and what is best for individual communities (DCLG 2010). As highlighted above
the idea of one community voice is difficult enough, however, with Children's Services and
other services that are important to children and young people this becomes even more
problematic.
Part of this problem is linked to the nature of citizenship, the Government’s
ideas of transparency and accountability are based on citizens (voters in a democracy)
holding elected officials accountable for their actions (DCLG 2010), however if this
definition is used children are automatically excluded due to being ineligible to vote, in this
case alternative channels need to be identified to allow children and young people to voice
their opinions and needs.
Historically children’s voices have not been heard in the policy making arena, in fact for
many years it was not even seen as being necessary to hear what children had to say (Ridge
2009). The standard idea being that children’s best interests would be served by their
parents; in many ways these ideas are still prominent, as the choice agenda in public services
has expanded it is still predominantly parents who speak for their children. In most cases
parents feel that they have their children’s best interests at heart even where their decisions
do not fulfil Government expectations (Gewirtz 2001, Barlow and Duncan 2000) however
where children have parents who are uninformed or misinformed, do not make decisions
based on what is best for their children or where children have the local authority as parents it
could be the case that children’s best interests are not served and children’s voices are
sometimes lost (McLeod 2007, Evans 2011).
Over the past 10 years as children’s services
have gone through a rapid expansion in service provision and status it has become recognised
that it is important, if not essential to include the voice of children in decisions about all
12 | P a g e
aspects of their lives and in many cases it is now a requirement to include children in
consultations (Evans 2011, McKechnie 2002). As the importance of children’s exclusion
has been highlighted over the last decade the structures that are needed to channel children’s
voices to policy makers have developed, ironically in most cases this development has been
through community projects, many of which will no longer be funded by local authorities
looking to cut back on non essential services (Evans 2011, Leppar 2011)
It should be noted however that children like adults are not a homogenous group and there are
divisions of class, gender, ‘race’ and disability which impact on their lives, their interaction
with public bodies and services and their ability to be heard (Novak 2002, Cavet and Sloper
2004). In addition the media portrayal of some groups of young people as problematic or
‘undeserving’, for example young offenders, children with ASBO’s, children of asylum
seeking families, or even looked after children compound the problems that some children
face in being heard (Evans 2011). Without legitimate structures in place to channel
children’s voices they become reliant on the community to act in their best interests and there
is a real danger that ‘unpopular needs’ will be dismissed by the ‘majority voice’ leaving
whole groups of children and young people written off by communities with no channel for
appeal. (Higgs and Watson 2010, Evans 2011, Ridge 2009).
Conclusion
This paper has only begun to touch on some of the many issues that are raised for children
and young people by the move to Big Society. Although acknowledging that there are a
whole range of issues related to the capacity and willingness of third sector organisations to
provide appropriate services for children and families where public services are removed, the
main focus of this paper has been on the ability of the local community to ‘grow’ the Big
Society and to adequately represent and meet the needs of children and young people.
In a period of public spending cuts it is being suggested by Government that local
communities can be given the opportunity and empowered to step in and take on the
organisation and management of their own needs and services. There is not yet any
suggestion of local communities taking on ‘essential’ front line services but as ‘peripheral’
services have their funding cut there is an expectation that communities will step in. In areas
13 | P a g e
of high social capital and advantage (in terms of time and finance), these services may
continue to provide for the local community through volunteers and community groups. In
more disadvantaged areas it is less clear how much capacity people will have to maintain
these services. The move is likely to result in an uneven distribution of services with the
most disadvantaged areas having access to the least amount of services. These ‘peripheral’
services like libraries, leisure centres and play spaces are important to children and young
people and for poorer children they are essential
In addition to the likely uneven distribution of services the idea of a community voice also
raises concerns about whose voice communities will speak with. It is likely that in most
cases the community voice will be the voice of the adult majority and there is no guarantee
that children’s views will be accommodated. The move to give local people more say over
planning, development and service provision in their local area through the Localism Bill has
the potential to result in more objections to projects that are perceived as posing a threat to
the majority community or as pandering to unpopular needs (Higgs and Watson 2010, Parvin
2009, Evans 2011). In these cases the most vulnerable and perhaps needy children are at risk
of being further excluded by their own communities.
Acevo (2011) Powerful people, responsible society. Association of Chief Executives of
Voluntary Organisations.
Aguilar, J. and Sen, S. (2009) Comparing Conceptualizations of Social Capital. Journal of
Community Practice, (17), pp.424-443.
Barlow, A. and Duncan, S. (2001) Supporting Families? New Labour's Communitarianism
and the 'rationality mistake'. Part 1. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law,
22(1), pp.23-42.
Bell, L. (2011) Scout Association launches campaign to save groups from ‘crippling’ rent
increases. Children and Young People Now, March
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The Forms of Capital. in Richardson, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood, pp.241-258.
14 | P a g e
Brisson, D. (2009) Testing the Relationship of Formal Bonding, Informal Bonding, and
Formal Bridging Social Capital on Key Outcomes for Families in Low-Income
Neighbourhoods. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, XXXVI(1), pp.167-183.
Cameron, D. (2009) Leaders Conference Speech. Manchester.
Campaign to End Child Poverty (2011) Child Poverty Map of the UK. London: CPAG.
Cavet, J. and Sloper, P. (2004) Participation of disabled children in individual decisions
about their lives and in public decisions about service development. Children and
Society, 18(4), pp.278-290.
Chandiramani, R. (2011) Children are squeezed out as cutbacks diminish public space.
Children and Young People Now, (8th March).
Coleman, J. (1988) Social Theory, Social Research and a Theory of Action, American
Journal of Sociology, 91 (1309-1335)
Davey, C. and Lundy, L. Towards a greater recognition of the right to play: An analysis of
article 31 of the UNCRC. Children and Society, 25(1), pp.3-14.
Dept. For Communities and Local Government (2010) Decentralisation and the Localism
Bill: an essential guide. London: HM Government.
Dept. For Children, Families and Schools and Dept. For Culture, Media and Sport (2008)
The Play Strategy. London: HM Government.
Evans, K. (2011) 'Big Society' in the UK: A Policy Review. Children and Society, 25(2),
pp.164-171.
Foley, P. (2008) Introduction. in Collins, J. and P, F. (eds.) Promoting children's wellbeing:
policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
Gamarnikow, E. and Green, A. (1999) The Third Way and Social Capital: Education Action
Zones and a New Agenda for Education, Parents and Community? International
Studies in Sociology of Education, 9(1), pp.3-22.
Gewirtz, S. (2001) Cloning the Blairs: New Labour's Programme for the re-socialization of
working class parents. Journal of Education Policy, 16(4), pp.365-378.
Gillies, V. and Edwards, R. (2006) A qualitative analysis of parenting and social capital:
Comparing the work of Coleman and Bourdieu. Qualitative Sociology Review, 2(2),
pp.42-60.
Goldson, B., Lavalette, M. and Mckechnie, J. (eds) (2002) Children, Welfare and the State.
London: Sage.
Hendrick, H. (ed) (2005) Child Welfare and Social Policy: An essential reader. Bristol:
Policy Press.
15 | P a g e
Higgs, L. and Watson, R. (2010) Children's Sector Fears Losing out under Big Society.
Children and Young People Now, May.
Holland, J., Reynolds, T. and Weller, S. (2007) Transitions, Networks and Communities: The
Significance of Social Capital in the Lives of Children and Young People. Journal of
Youth Studies, 10(1), pp.97-116.
Houghton, J. and Blume, T. (2010) Poverty, power and policy dilemmas: Lessons from the
community empowerment programme in England. Journal of Urban Regeneration
and Renewal, 4(3), pp.207-217.
James, A. and James, A. L. (2004) Constructing Childhood : Theory, Policy and Practice.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
JRF (2010) Response to Communities and Government select committee. Regeneration to
enable growth – what the Government is doing in support of community-led
regeneration. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Kisby, B. (2010) The Big Society: Power to the People? The Political Quarterly, 81(4).
Koniordos, S. (2008) Social Capital Contested. International Review of Sociology, 18(2),
pp.317-337.
Leppar, J. (2010) Plan for children's services to test staff run mutuals. Children and Young
People Now, August
Leppar, J. (2011) Trust that inspired Big Society to lose its youth services. Children and
Young People Now, March
Lister, R. (2003) Investing in the citizen-workers of the future: Transformations in
citizenship and the state under New Labour. Social Policy and Administration, 37(5),
pp.427-443.
Mathers, J., Parry, J. and Jones, S. (2008) Exploring resident (non)participation in the UK
New Deal for Communities Regeneration Programme. Urban Studies, 45(3), pp.591606.
McCabe, A. (2010) Below the Radar in a Big Society? Reflections of community engagement,
empowerment and social action in a changing policy context. Third Sector Research
Centre.
Mckechnie, J. (2002) Children's Voices and Researching Childhood. in Goldson, B.,
Lavalette, M. and Mckechnie, J. (eds.) Children, Welfare and the State. London:
Sage.
Mcleod, A. (2007) Whose Agenda? Issues of power and relationship when listening to
looked-after young people. Child and Family Social Work, (12), pp.278-286.
16 | P a g e
Novak, T. (2002) Rich Children, Poor Children. in Goldson, B., Lavalette, M. and
Mckechnie, J. (eds.) Children, Welfare and the State. London: Sage.
Page, R. (2010) David Cameron’s modern Conservative approach to poverty and social
justice: towards one nation or two? Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 18 (2),
pp147-160
Parton, N. (2006) Safeguarding Childhood. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Parvin, P. (2009) Against Localism: Does Decentralising Power to Communities Fail
Minorities? The Political Quarterly, 80(3), pp.351-360.
Play England Engaging Communities in Play Project. (2011) London:
www.playengland.org.uk. [Accessed 24th May].
Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Ridge, T. (2009) Living with Poverty. Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy.
Rutter, J. and Evans, B. (2011) Informal Childcare - choice or chance? A Literature Review.
The Day Care Trust.
Seaman, P. and Sweeting, H. (2004) Assisting Young People's Access to Social Capital in
Contemporary Families: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Youth Studies, 7(2), pp.173190.
Social Justice Policy Group (2006) Broken Britain. Centre for Social Justice.
Social Justice Policy Group (2007) Breakthrough Britain. Centre for Social Justice.
Stoker, G. (2004) New Localism, Progressive Politics and Democracy. The Political
Quarterly, 75(1), pp.117-129.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Stoker, G. (2011) The Coalition Programme: A New Vision for Britain
or Politics as Usual? The Political Quarterly, 82(1), pp4-15.
Telegraph (2011) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spendingreview/8077222/Spending-Review-the-winners-and-losers-by-Governmentdepartment.html
Tudor-Hart, J. (1971) The Inverse Care Law. The Lancet, (297), pp.405-412.
Voce, A. (2011) The Abolition of the Play Strategy will cost us. Children and Young People
Now, (5th April).