This article argues that postmodernist theory is something which students of social policy should neither accept uncritically nor dismiss out of hand. Firstly, the article takes issue with the responses made to postmodernist theory by Ramesh Mishra and Peter Taylor-Gooby. Secondly, it argues that the ideas loosely known as ‘reflexive modernisation’ constitute a more measured and critical response, though such ideas are likely to be of little use to social policy research in the absence of any reference to a left-right spectrum. Thirdly, it argues that by combining reflexive modernisation with a left-right spectrum, a decentred conception of welfare emerges which could be of value to a radical left politics. Finally, it argues for a Citizen's Income as a reform proposal which has the potential to establish such a system of decentred welfare.

The aim of this article is to present a less negative and more rounded analysis of the potential contribution of postmodernism to social policy than that presented by Taylor-Gooby (1994) in this journal entitled ‘Postmodernism: A Great Leap Backwards?’. It covers four major themes. First, it examines Foucault's ideas on power/knowledge, the body, discipline and surveillance. Second, the article explores the connections between feminism, postmodernism and social policy. Third, it analyses theories of the poststructural state. Fourth, it considers a neglected topic in the subject of space and assesses the contribution of postmodern discourses of spatiality and their relevance to social policy. The article acknowledges the contradiction arising from post-modernism's critique of meta-theory and mainstream social policy's commitment to universalism, but concludes that the answer does not lie in the universal rejection of postmodernism but in the use of the ideas and insights to move the discipline in new directions.

The post-Fordist welfare state thesis is premised upon the economic and technological changes seen in Britain and elsewhere over the last twenty-five years. Its regulationist variant though goes further and locates welfare shifts within a broader account of the transformed accumulation regime. This amounts to a useful intellectual framework within which to consider social policy developments.

This article however, argues that the post-Fordist case is ultimately misleading as it works with an overly restrictive picture of welfare and pays insufficient attention to non-class social divisions. It overemphasises historical disjunctures in the development of welfare and in doing so misses important areas of continuity. This is compounded by a linked tendency to assume rather than demonstrate the actual transformation of the various services. The evidence from education provides only limited support for the predictive aspects of the model. It also confirms the need for sensitive causal accounts of welfare change.

The prolonged and pervasive recession in the UK property market has produced significant numbees of households with unsecured housing debt – negative equity. These homeowners are typically recent, first-time buyers and are concentrated in the southern core regions of Britain. Various aggregate estimates exist of the numbers of households with unsecured debt and the amounts of money involved; little is known, however, about individual experiences of negative equity. Here, in-depth interview data are drawn on to explore the different strategies adopted by households in varying social and financial circumstances. Findings are related to more general changes in housing market behaviour and to broader theoretical debates about the growth of home ownership.

In November, the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that most benefits would go up in line with inflation (or, for means-tested benefits, the Rossi price index) in April (24:3/95, 1.1). He also announced other plans, including: cuts in housing benefit for single people under 25 renting privately; a freeze in one parent benefit and lone parent premium; and an increase in the childcare disregard for family credit (24:1/93, 1.3). There will be changes to national insurance contributions for the self-employed. The Labour Party was reported to be reviewing its policies on social security.