Recent developments in the drug field have prompted claims that criminal justice has displaced health from its formerly dominant position and have also been used to support general claims about the criminalisation of social policy. This article critically assesses such claims and offers an alternative interpretation, arguing that British drug policy has been shaped and reshaped by the broader workings of the modern state. Early controls reflected the influence of medicine and public health over emerging forms of state interventionism, while subsequent arrangements were consistent with the penal-welfare tradition that dominated criminal justice for much of the last century. More recently, it is the transformation of this tradition that has played a key role in reshaping the drug field, producing evidence of both continuity and change. What others have attributed to ‘criminalisation’, therefore, is said to reflect broader changes in the nature of criminal justice itself. Whilst the transformation of penal-welfarism helps to explain the development of more punitive and coercive forms of drug control, this is only part of the story. As with criminal justice more generally, the limitations of the sovereign state have given rise to various adaptive strategies and it is here that considerable continuity can be seen, particularly in relation to the on-going importance of drug treatment and harm reduction.

The socially perceived necessities or ‘consensual’ approach to defining and measuring poverty is based on an assumption that it is possible to obtain a collective view from society on the necessities for an acceptable standard of living. The enforced lack of the necessities due – typically – to lack of resources can be regarded as poverty. The validity of the approach has been questioned on a number of grounds including the argument that people's socio-economic circumstances may influence what they define as a necessity. Widespread lack of material possessions and access to services could result in these items being regarded as ‘less necessary’, which in turn could artificially deflate the definition of poverty using this approach. Informed by the adaptive preferences literature and drawing on a nationally representative South African Socially Attitudes Survey this paper explores whether there is evidence in South Africa of an association between people's patterns of possession and their definition of items as essential. Notwithstanding the fact that possession of an item is strongly associated with people's preferences, the evidence on balance suggests that widespread lack does not undermine the validity of the approach.

There is concern that current UK policy and intervention aimed at supporting fathers remains primarily informed by dominant White middle-class values and experiences, and therefore fails to respond adequately to the needs of Britain's diverse fathers. This paper contributes to understanding of ethnic diversity in fathering contexts, practices and experiences, by reporting findings from a qualitative study of British Asian fathers, involving in-depth interviews with fifty-nine fathers and thirty-three mothers from Bangladeshi Muslim, Pakistani Muslim, Gujarati Hindu and Punjabi Sikh background, and over eight additional respondents engaged through Key Informant interviews, ethnographic interviews and group discussions. The paper highlights four areas that require greater recognition by policy-makers and practitioners to appropriately meet the needs of fathers from diverse ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. These are: recognising that fathers and mothers do not necessarily constitute an autonomous unit; appreciating diversity in fathers’ understandings of desirable child outcomes; addressing additional obstacles to achieving similar outcomes for children; and understanding that the boundaries and content of fathering are not universally recognised. Policies that are less normative and more responsive to diversity are essential to ensure that all fathers can be effectively supported.