Theorising social policy failure through John Searle Ian Greener Durham University 1

Outline Institutional theory in social policy/public administration John Searle’s work Insights from Searle’s social ontology Case 1 – Stafford Hospital Case 2 – Benefits Conclusion 2

Institutional theory in social policy/public administration ‘History matters’ and ‘ideas matter’ The 3 new institutionalisms – historical, sociological, rational choice Stress on institutional continuity and claim that ideas matter Progress being made through theory and case-based analysis BUT Tendency to over-theorise while at the same time lacking theoretical foundations? Little in common between cases and lack of specificity about ideas? Problems of dealing with change as well as continuity 3

John Searle’s work Berkeley-based philosopher Influence of Habermas, host of Foucault, hosted by Bourdieu Contributions across language, philosophy of mind and here, social ontology Worth looking at work from ‘outside’ of the field to gain new insights 4

Insights from Searle’s social ontology Overlaps heavily with his other work to form an overlapping view of the world Institutions are created the assignment of status functions through collective intentionality A status function are the roles we assign and are usually created by declarations Status functions carry deontic powers They must be at least accepted by others – collective intentionality Institutional facts take the general form ‘X counts as Y in context C’ Where X is a brute fact or a previous institutional fact Y is the new institutional fact C is where the institutional fact applies Obama counts as President in the USA The pound counts as money in the UK 5

Insights from Searle’s social ontology Searle’s social ontology points to several fracture points in institutional life where it can be undermined: 1. Collective ‘we’ intentionality fails – we no longer regard ourselves as having a common purpose or goals – we no longer accept the rules. 2. The means by which institutional life are judged become detached from everyday organisational life. 3. The deontic powers attached to roles become detached from the institution’s goals or become out of step with the institutional environment Particular roles become dysfunctional More generally, institutional life depends upon abstraction – and with abstraction comes substantial risks…. 6

Case 1 – Stafford Hospital Key criticism from Francis inquiry was that hospital was chasing targets rather than serving patients This is entirely explicable in Searle’s framework but points to a bigger problem – abstraction is inherent in any PM regime This casts doubt on the ‘basic standards’ regime suggested by Francis – which can be seen as having the same inherent problems… Care cannot be reduced to specific variables – it has a logic which is based on a very demanding series of relationships between patients and carers (Mol) If ‘care’ becomes a status function, then it becomes an abstraction which cannot do justice to the logic of care We need to think of care differently – as being the outcome of negotiations between carers and patients that actually ask a great deal from both sides – the commitment to try and make things better… And this is better delivered by both professionals and patients taking greater responsibility… 7

Case 2 - Benefits The breaking of the Blair/Brown deal… The coalition government and mis-placed comparisons with Greece ‘Fairness’ and ‘hard-working families’ – the deserving and undeserving Misrepresenting those who receive benefits – pensioners and working families – to sow division This is the undermining of collective intentionality – and of the risk pooling upon which the welfare state is based Is this deliberate? Yes and no. The labelling and ‘forced choice’ of austerity are certainly deliberate – the undermining of the collective basis of welfare may be a ‘fallout’ (or am I being naïve?). 8

Conclusion Present institutional theories have generated great insights, but, in my view, are perhaps running out of steam Searle’s work presents an injection of new ideas that have the potential to generate new insights into social policy problems In the first case, Searle’s ideas show the dangers of abstractions that we create in institutions, and of the importance of generating ‘bottom-up’ mechanisms for improvement In the second, the dangers of allowing governments to undermine the collective intentionality upon which are welfare systems are based. 9