Inequalities in rates of sickness and mortality between social groups has long been a matter of concern and of inquiry in Britain. Disciplinary differentiation has resulted in the problem now being treated within what have become three distinct intellectual traditions. These are social administration, epidemiology, and sociology, and the accounts they provide differ significantly from each other. This is partly because ‘the’ problem is somewhat differently defined in each; and partly because of their different orientations to theory and to practical amelioration. This article explores the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and raises the possibility of a more adequate explanation than any one discipline provides. The implications for study of social administration are considered.

This article examines state provision of unemployment insurance (UI) in Britain. State intervention in insurance is normally perceived as stemming from the failure of private markets to meet socially expressed needs, but an examination of the historical development of state provision, and present practice, of UI in Britain suggest that this was not a central concern of state intervention. It is argued that an alternative explanation must stem from a theoretical model of the actions of the state, and various models primarily within a Marxist framework are described. The problems inherent in approaches which emphasize the relation between the needs of capitalist accumulation and the actions of the state are discussed, and it is argued that a more realistic account must take note of the heterogenous nature of the labour market in capitalist society and how, in such a society, the ideology which underpins social welfare policy is constructed. The article briefly examines recent political developments and argues that proposals for reform of UI must be located within a broader political strategy for economic and political transformation.

Social services in the Netherlands have traditionally been delivered by non-state agencies, in a climate of support for ‘private initiative’ and resistance to direct intervention by government. These agencies have, however, become almost totally dependent upon government finance, while operating virtually autonomously in a non-politicised sphere where services have become increasingly sophisticated and expensive. The power exercised over public resources and public services by these ‘private’ agencies, particularly at national level, and the lack of control over the welfare sector by government, has been the subject of growing criticism in recent years. The dysfunctions of a ‘voluntary’ system of social services have also become glaringly evident. This article traces the development of a relationship between state and ‘private enterprise’ in the social services which has developed from a strictly ‘separatist’ model to one where a high degree of inter-penetration has been reached. It also examines current efforts to extend this second ‘incorporated’ model of statutory-voluntary relationships by placing social welfare services under a greater measure of public control within a decentralized system of local political responsibility.