The sale of council dwellings under the right to buy has been a prominent feature of the privatisation policies of the Thatcher governments. The impact of such changes in the ownership and control of dwellings remains a subject of considerable debate. Whilst there is now substantial evidence on the short term effects of council house sales, the longer term impacts on dwellings and households have largely been a matter for speculation. This paper explores some of the central policy and theoretical issues through new research evidence on dwellings sold by local authorities in the late sixties and early seventies. In particular it focuses on what has happened to households and dwellings since privatisation, the political orientation of those households and on attitudes towards and experiences of state provision. In general it presents a picture of continuity and stability rather than dramatic change and transformation following privatisation.

Data from the authors' qualitative study of decision-making in low income households casts new light on council house sales in a least-favoured housing estate. Under pressure from rising rents and rumours of privatisation, poor tenants are deciding to buy their houses as a way of securing their future in the area and controlling their personal environment, rather than as an escape from a residual ‘ghetto’ of welfare housing. This raises a number of issues in relation to current theories about housing tenure, especially those which distinguish sharply between the material and ideological bases of owner occupation and local authority tenancy. The authors argue that their respondents' reasons for wanting to buy do not constitute a rejection of collectivism as much as an attempt to preserve the endangered advantages of their situation on the estate.

The authors discuss the development of welfare rights advisory work in Britain, tracing its origins from the Community Development Projects of the late 1960s to services which are funded mainly by local government. Changes in social security legislation in 1980 introduced a largely non-discretionary regulated scheme which was quickly exploited by welfare rights advisers to maximise the take-up of single payments. Advisers and social workers were blamed for generating a deluge of claims by informing claimants of their right to extra benefit. Hence, in 1986, the government restricted entitlement to single payments. It is argued, on the basis of a survey of single payment queries made to welfare rights advisory agencies, that those restrictions foreshadowed the coming of the social fund—with its discretion, cash limit and extremely limited eligibility. The implications for welfare rights work in this changed climate are considered.

This paper highlights the development of the welfare state in Canada to its peak in the mid-1960s, and then traces the retreat from that height. While federalism and the complex relations between Ottawa and the provinces clearly represent a complicating factor, the paper argues that the fiscal crisis of the state has been the primary influence in the decline. As a major trading economy, Canada could not be immune from the onset of worldwide monetarism, though its effects were felt relatively late. Canadian monetarism has been marked by high taxes, an unwillingness/inability to cut government spending, and a singular absence of the anti-welfare state rhetoric of Reaganomics or Thatcherism. Neo-liberal outcomes are still likely to emerge, however, though they will be couched in market language and the need to be competitive internationally, particularly after the 1988 Free Trade Agreement with the United States.

Invalidity benefit is the main form of state-provided long term sickness benefit in Great Britain, and the number of claims for the benefit have increased beyond all expectations since its introduction in 1971. This paper summarises the results of a project on the issue, analysing data over the period 1975/6 and 1983/4. The numbers claiming the benefit are viewed in terms of the outcome of the inflow and the duration of claims. The determination of both inflows and durations were found to be dominated by demographic effects in terms of age and health, but other factors were also found to be relevant at the margin. These included local housing and labour market conditions, as well as pay prior to entry and rates of benefit. Inflows were found to fall over the period, however, as a result of changes in the population ‘at risk’ of entry. The main cause of growth in the number of claims lay in increased durations, in relation to which it was observed that the percentage of new claimants with characteristics associated with longer claim durations increased over the period.