The interaction of local and international child welfare agendas: A South African case

Abstract

This article assesses the interaction between international and local influences in South African child welfare practice and education between 2001 and 2010. Based on a mixed methods study, it finds that the primary mechanism for international exchange occurred through funding. Professional imperialism continued to be evidenced in the domination of Northern agendas in local curricula and the lack of critical interrogation of external practices. A disjuncture between research and practice priorities was found with some areas of intersection. The article provides insight into the local/global nexus in child welfare and recommends further investigation into more authentic and egalitarian international relationships of exchange.

Keywords

Child welfare child welfare education international diffusion of social work international social work South Africa

Introduction

International social work has in tandem with increasing globalization developed as a domain of social work. This international exchange of ideas has impacted all fields of social work (Rowe et al., 2000), including child welfare. How global and local ideas and practices interact with one another remains unclear. This article aims to shed some light on the issue by examining the interaction of internationalization and parochial developments on child welfare practice and education in South Africa in the period 2001–2010. This interrelationship is of interest internationally as global agendas for social work emerge (Jones and Truell, 2012). The article begins by reflecting on the meaning of global developments for international social work, explores how globalization has impacted the field of child welfare and then turns to the interaction between these developments in South Africa and its implications for social work education and practice.

Directional influences in social work

The ways in which social work in various contexts is influenced is important to consider if one wishes to understand what forces shape child welfare. Globalization and the concomitant emergence of international social work reveal some of these influences.

Although globalization was first identified primarily as an economic phenomenon (Huegler et al., 2012), it is now recognized that the forces and effects of globalization have become increasingly complex (Midgley, 2000; Triegaardt, 2009). Globalization has impacted social work specifically through global mass communication and exchange; international conventions on social, political and economic rights; and international social work collaboration.

International social work assumes certain commonalities in the way in which social work is practised in various contexts (Gray and Fook, 2004; Jones and Truell, 2012). These intersections include shared ethical foundations, formal social work structures, the notion of praxis, the recognition of individual dignity, valuing of diversity, and a social justice and human rights agenda (Cox and Pawar, 2006; Midgley, 2010; Rowe et al., 2000). Despite these common strands, various aspects of international social work are contentious, involving both facilitative and oppressive factors (Dominelli and Hackett, 2011, 2012). One dilemma in defining social work across international boundaries is that different aspects are emphasized depending on the country context such as methods, fields of practice, target groups and practice priorities (Cox and Pawar, 2006; Jones and Truell, 2012; Midgley, 2001). Concerns dominant in the global South are not traditionally attended to in ‘first world’ contexts. Another risk occurs when indigenous cultures are assumed to be homogenous (Yunong and Xiong, 2012).

An additional dilemma has to do with the direction of the diffusion of ideas. The movement of concepts and constructions internationally occurs because of migration (Midgley, 2001; Spolander et al., 2011) and through transnational networks which are fostered through the wide reach of international agencies (Hulme, 2005). However, the direction of exchange is typically not reciprocal. It appears to be primarily an Anglo-American transfer (Hulme, 2005) and to flow from the global North to the South. This unidirectional influence is criticized as mirroring the spread of social work as a facet of colonization (Cox and Pawar, 2006). Indeed, Midgley (1981) early on referred to this as a form of professional imperialism with social work theories and practice being unquestioningly transferred from so-called developed to developing countries. Nevertheless, Midgley and Conley (2010) are optimistic that the voice of the South is increasingly being heard.

Brydon (2012) contemporarily queries whether transnational dialogue promotes diversity, or whether it reinforces the hegemony of ideas emanating from the western industrialized world. Thus, there are increasing expectations that curriculum content as well as local interventions should fulfil ‘universal’ norms (Askeland and Payne, 2006; Brydon, 2012) which makes it difficult to identify what is indeed indigenous (Gray, 2005; Osei-Hwedie, 2002; Rankopo and Osei-Hwedie, 2011). Ife (2000) contends that this tension between universal norms and the local ideas and practices might be addressed through the notion of glocalization – a construct that allows one to hold onto the benefits of globalization whilst also maintaining and sustaining the value of local action.

Important critiques exist in the limited South African social work literature on internationalization. Prior to the globalization debate, Patel (1992) highlighted that social work theory and practice typical of the North had limited relevance to a developing context. The initiatives regarding Developmental Social Welfare (as articulated in the White Paper of 1997) are efforts at creating a local appropriate welfare response (Patel, 2005). Gray (2010) observes that despite the acknowledged need for indigenous approaches, theories and models drawn from the United Kingdom and the United States continue to hold sway. Smith (2008) contends that this orientation leaves novice social workers unprepared for the South African reality. In sync with international shifts (Cox and Pawar, 2006), Sewpaul and Hölscher (2004) are critical of the diffusion of neo-liberal influences in post-apartheid social welfare policy. In order to address the challenges of globalization, Triegaardt (2004) calls on social workers to be cognizant of global economic developments, how these shape social policies as well as the need to devise and implement programs that address inequality.

We now turn to the impact of globalization on the direction of child welfare policies and practice and the international diffusion of these ideas in the child welfare field.

International agendas regarding children

The exposure to external ideas through globalization is likely to affect the lived realities of children, as these forces shape the policies and programmes adopted by local economic, political and social institutions and actors (Rizzini and Bush, 2002). Various shifts have occurred. First, the introduction of the rights instruments The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989) and The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) (1990) have shaped worldwide dialogue and local child welfare policy agendas. Regrettably, much more is needed to ensure the daily realization of children’s rights (Harper et al., 2009). The child rights debate has spurred discussion about the interaction between universal norms and context-specific approaches to child welfare (Healy, 2007) as well as between collective and individualist foci in interventions (Burman, 1996).

Additionally, the interrogation of the meaning of citizenship, children’s agency and participation in matters that affect children has also received increasing attention in contemporary child welfare discourses (Ansell, 2005; Bentley, 2011; Lundy and Envoy, 2011; Wall, 2011). These debates are influenced by the acknowledgement of the different societal contexts of childhood and the varied expectations of children (Ansell, 2005).

Another international shift has been the widening focus of child welfare interventions. Going beyond traditional notions of abused children, a much broader range of children are now considered to be vulnerable and in need of intervention (Anderson et al., 1999; Estacio and Marks, 2005; Goodmark, 2010; Ripoli-Nunez and Rohner, 2006). Emerging out of development activities, social protection, child poverty and hunger, child health, migrant children and unaccompanied minors, and the associated Millennium Development Goals have been a further trend (Pinkerton and Muhangi, 2009; Platt, 2011).

Finally, accompanying an interest in international social work is greater attention to comparative studies of child welfare systems and aspects of care, such issues as the point of entry, definition of client groups, tensions between statutory and voluntary interventions, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, the value of single service versus multidisciplinary agencies, community-based options and modes of partnering with families having been debated (Conley, 2010; Freymond and Cameron, 2006; Gilbert et al., 2011; Katz and Pinkerton, 2003; Waldegrave, 2006).

In short, globalization has influenced the development of social work and also impinged on the lives of children. In this article, the authors intend to highlight how these international agendas have interacted with local ones in South African child welfare practice, education and research.

The South African child welfare policy context

Welfare policy and legislation provide the background against which child welfare is practised, taught and researched. In South Africa, the White Paper of 1997 provides the framework for an alternative to the discriminatory, remedial and individualistic orientation of apartheid welfare through the advancement of developmental social welfare. All welfare efforts, including those in the realm of child welfare, are expected to conform to the rights-oriented, generic, inter-sectoral, and socio-economic direction of developmental social welfare. While the developmental social welfare model is a response to South African realities, certain concepts have also been drawn from the work of James Midgley, a South African by origin, but a United States-based scholar (Patel, 2005). Schmid (2012a, 2012b) suggests that the application of developmental social welfare principles to child welfare requires economic and social integration, including a strong social security system as well as skill-building and employment opportunities. The involvement of children and their families in decisions that affect them and an emphasis on rights is a second dimension. Collaboration across sectors, government levels and disciplines is essential. While primary prevention efforts are critical, preventive and therapeutic efforts should be focused on the empowerment of service users and their communities and should be mutually reinforcing.

Various pieces of legislation which have been introduced post-apartheid are important in child welfare (Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities, 2013). The Children’s Act 2005 provides a cornerstone to child welfare practice in South Africa. In accordance with the South African constitution as well as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), this legislation identifies which groups of children are vulnerable, defines abuse, outlines appropriate legal responses and demands appropriate resource allocation to vulnerable children. Other relevant documents include the Sexual Offences Act 2007, the Child Justice Act 2008, the White Paper 5 on Early Childhood Development 2001 and the National Plan of Action for Children. Children’s rights, particularly the child’s right to be heard and to participate in decisions that affect him or her are reflected in this legislative and policy landscape. While oppressive cultural practices have been outlawed, the policy and legislative environment also calls attention to culturally sensitive practice. International influences are evident, for example, in the intent of ensuring that local legislation conforms to the UNCRC. Author 1 has argued elsewhere that anglophone constructions of child protection are strongly reflected in the local child welfare discourse, including the Children’s Act 2005 (Schmid, 2010). Numerous resource constraints, such as a lack of human resource capacity to implement legislation, underfunding of welfare services and diverse interpretations of key policies have limited the changes envisioned (Patel and Hochfeld, forthcoming; Patel et al., 2012).

Research strategy

This article is based on a study conducted in 2011 in South Africa in which the child welfare trends and drivers behind these developments were analysed for the period 2001–2010. The purpose was to identify what preoccupies practitioners and academics in a post-apartheid society to enable policy makers and practitioners to build on the strong human rights drivers of change, to address potential gaps, to build on strengths and promote innovation. The research report provides an overview of the design and method and the overall findings (Schmid, 2012a, 2012b). The focus of this article is on the international aspects of the study findings.

The data in this article are derived from first, seven interviews that were conducted with senior management representatives of national child welfare organizations, a child welfare advocacy expert and an academic. The participants were purposively selected based on their knowledge, experience and standing in the field. Second, a questionnaire was sent to 250 child welfare agencies eliciting 12 responses. The questionnaire was also sent to all 17 academic institutions with social work departments, six academics responding. Third, a literature scan reviewing articles on South African child welfare over the last decade was conducted. A total of 155 entries were identified as child welfare-related in the two accredited professional journals in South Africa namely, The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher and Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk. Using the search concepts ‘child abuse’; ‘child maltreatment; and ‘child welfare’, 131 articles were identified through Scholars Portal in international social work, child welfare, health, psychological and sociological journals. International articles seemed to be submitted by local authors and thus do not offer a view of how international researchers view the South African child welfare context.

The data were analysed through thematic analysis, sub-categories and categories being drawn together into emergent themes. The overarching themes stretching over the interviews, questionnaires and articles were then identified. A member-checking process allowed for conformability of the content. The analytic process was informed by the reflexive methodology of Alvesson and Skoldberg (2000), a hermeneutic, iterative approach in which multiple sets of data are collected and in which the authenticity, bias and contemporariness of the data are assessed. Despite the limited nature of the study, various observations were made.

Findings

Four themes are discussed that provide insight into the interaction between local and international child welfare agendas.

Children’s rights

A global focus that was important was the emphasis on children’s rights. A respondent observed: ‘A greater awareness of the rights of children has led to increased practice trends in children’s rights, child protection and early childhood development’. The adoption by South Africa of the UNCRC and then ACRWC, plus the acknowledgement of children’s rights in the South African Constitution, provided the new South Africa with credibility and legitimacy post-apartheid and facilitated South Africa’s inclusion into the international arena. Also, educating children about their rights had become a core child welfare program. As suggested by one respondent: ‘There is a strong focus on Children’s Rights and this is also our mission. . .’

A ‘Western’ orientation to social work education

Participants noted that ‘Anglocentric’ approaches remained dominant in the curriculum. A study participant maintained: ‘Many of the first world countries policies/legislations remain to be unproductive and not practical like England/Canada/USA/Australia/New Zealand. Old remedial practices remained the only way we know for support and treatment’. A child protection orientation continued to be taught even when a developmental social welfare perspective was perhaps more appropriate: ‘. . . the international trends still focus on a child protection approach. We have inherited this. . . There is an awareness that a shift is required. . .’

A strong call for teaching informed by indigenous realities emerged from the study. A participant stated: ‘We are making ongoing efforts to create an indigenous model of social work education, but this is an uphill climb because not many literature and other resources are available’.

Participants felt Western approaches impacted negatively on South African students. One participant, supporting Smith (2008), suggested that the current curriculum prepared students for overseas work placements (and thus inadvertently supported immigration) but left novice social workers inadequately tooled for local context.

Research agenda intersects only partially with practice and teaching priorities

The study found that there was a disjuncture between the research foci of academics and teaching and practice priorities in South Africa and that these were only partially connected. Rather research leant towards the issue of sexual abuse, which was covered in 60 (21%) articles. The next two areas that emerged as important to investigators were the needs of adolescents (38 articles, 13%, though only three in the international literature) and the impact of HIV/AIDS on children and families (40 articles, 14%, 31 in the international literature). While addressing shifting population needs by considering adolescence and the AIDS pandemic, issues such as poverty and violence were generally overlooked. Other categories of vulnerable children, for example, children who have been abandoned, have been physically abused, are unaccompanied minors, have disabilities, or are identified as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi- and transsexual youth), were hardly researched (2%). Three percent of articles discussed street kids. A further 4 percent, all in the local literature, covered young offenders. Conceptual and methodological shifts advocated by policy and legislation regarding child rights, child participation, social protection, social development and developmental child welfare approaches made it onto the child welfare researchers’ agenda 6 percent of the time. Although reference was made to the acute crisis in child welfare delivery by the respondents, it received no specific attention.

While one can conclude that the research agenda only partially overlaps with the priorities identified by study participants, it is harder to identify the interaction of local and international influences in the South African child welfare research agenda – particularly as the lack of studies into international research agendas leaves one without a comparative measure. One can only tentatively conclude that South African researchers have tended to adopt overseas research priorities without critically analysing the relevance of these theories, models and approaches to the South African context.

Funding

Another area of international influence referred to by study participants was that of funding. International funding was increasingly channelled through the state rather than directly to non-governmental organizations. One respondent suggested ‘The international funding moved from communities in the (pre democracy era) to government after 1994. Government delivers too slowly to communities and so we are hoping this will shift again back to the community’. This was frustrating for the child welfare agencies, particularly as respondents felt that government financial support was extremely inadequate and inconsistent. Also, international funding was mostly linked to international rather than local funding priorities. As observed by one interviewee:

. . . trends. . . are not always driven by community needs. The needs seem to arise from international children’s organizations and international funders. . . and so South Africa has been forced to focus on [trafficking of children]. But trafficking is perhaps only 1% of the kids, whereas poverty affects around 60% of South Africa’s children. . . Of course the issue is important, but by focusing on this we ignore other big social difficulties.

The growing trend internationally towards accountability by government and donors to demonstrate the impact of child welfare interventions was also evident in this study. Monitoring and evaluation of child welfare services is receiving increasing attention by practitioners. Social workers perceived this to be a positive development as they more regularly reviewed their practice. They also acknowledged the need for a child welfare information management system in planning and evaluation.

Conclusions

The literature review contextualizing this study suggests that globalization had affected social work through an international exchange of ideas. Study respondents suggested that the mechanisms of international exchange in South Africa lay primarily in the area of funding, an issue not identified in the literature. The exposure to international literature seemed to be important in the education of social workers but was less significant for the ongoing development of practitioners. An ambivalent view regarding international influences emerged from the study. On the negative side, participants felt that they needed to conform to international agendas as this elicited credibility with international actors and ensured access to overseas funding. This pressurized local agencies to adopt priorities that did not necessarily reflect the needs locally. Professional imperialism continued to be evidenced in that social work curricula were influenced by the North which made it difficult for academics wishing to develop locally informed courses. It is ironic that the international migration of social workers tends (apparently) to be from the South to the North and that the education curricula in the South effectively prepare these social workers for employment in the North. On the positive side, international partnerships were valued in terms of the information exchange and concrete support of programmes.

Various strategies may be applied to mediate the dominance of the Northern influence. A first area is regards funding. Funding needs to be more closely linked with locally identified child welfare needs. Although not highlighted in this study, there are instances where international donors have supported local knowledge production and exchange (Child Watch International, 2012). Some non-governmental children’s organizations have been able to negotiate funding with donors following representations and careful motivation about local priorities, thus also influencing donor priorities (Patel, 2009).

A second area pertains to research. There is scope for greater South–South collaboration to strengthen research capacity and the exchange of ideas thereby increasing the learning from the South that is of global relevance. For example, paying greater attention to the expansion and implementation of a developmental welfare strategy in child welfare would be useful. Additional mechanisms for encouraging research in the South include supporting in-country research potentially in collaboration with Northern partners or providing scholarships for postgraduate studies. It is further recommended that more research is conducted to gain a better understanding of the complex interaction between local and international ideas in child welfare and how to advance indigenous models of theory and practice in the child welfare field. There is need for child welfare researchers to critically evaluate the relevance and applicability of international research data and modalities to problem situations in the South. One may infer from the study findings that relevant curricula and a better alignment between research, teaching and practice priorities are needed.

A critical review of the application of the rights discourse is a further strategy in balancing North–South relations. While the child rights-based approach is a positive one, more attention needs to be given to country-specific contexts in the application of universal norms. The manner and extent to which the child rights discourse is translated into national child welfare programmes requires further examination. For example, in the South African context, much energy has been placed on educating children about their rights without sufficient reflection as to whether this demonstrably leads to children having greater rights. The tension between individual rights (generally promoted internationally) and collective rights deserves investigation.

It may be useful to build on instances of ‘glocalization’ by developing clear guidelines for mutually beneficial and reciprocal North–South partnerships. The local and the global nexus is not a one-way process. It is an iterative process requiring ongoing critical reflection of what works and does not work in the local context and how this connects with global developments in both the North and the South. In this way, a more authentic child welfare theory, practice and research might just be possible based on mutual learning, exchange of ideas, innovation, research and more egalitarian relations of exchange.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

Jeanette Schmid is Research Fellow, Centre for Social Development in Africa, University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

Leila Patel is Professor and Director, Centre for Social Development in Africa, University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

References

Alvesson

Skoldberg

(2000) Reflexive Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Anderson

Ryan

Taylor-Brown

White-Gray

(eds) (1999) Children and HIV/AIDS. Portland, OR: Transaction Publishers.

Ansell

(2005) Children, Youth and Development. Routledge Perspectives on Development. New York: Routledge.

Askeland

Payne

(2006) ‘Social Work Education’s Cultural Hegemony’, International Social Work 49(6): 731–43.

Bentley

(2011) ‘Learning through Doing: Suggesting a Deliberative Approach to Children’s Political Participation and Citizenship’, Perspectives in Education 29(1): 46–54.

Brydon

(2012) ‘Promoting Diversity or Confirming Hegemony? In Search of New Insights for Social Work’, International Social Work 55(2): 155–67.

Burman

(1996) ‘Local, Global or Globalised? Childhood Development and International Child Rights Legislation’, Childhood 3(1): 45–66.

Child Watch International (2012) ‘Concept Paper: Project II: Strategies for strengthening the child rights research capacity in Sub-Saharan Africa’.

Conley

(2010) ‘Social Development, Social Investment, and Child Welfare’, in Midgley

Conley

(eds) The Theory and Practice of Developmental Social Work, pp. 31–54. New York: Oxford University Press.

10.

Cox

Pawar

(2006) International Social Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

11.

Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities (2013) ‘United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child Report: South Africa’s Combined Second, Third and Fourth Periodic State Policy Report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child’, Government of Republic of South Africa.

12.

Dominelli

Hackett

(2011) ‘Editorial: Interplays between Local and Global Contexts in Social Work’, International Social Work 54(5): 627–8.

13.

Dominelli

Hackett

(2012) ‘Editorial: Internationalizing Social Work Theory and Practice’, International Social Work 55(2): 151–3.

14.

Estacio

Marks

(2005) ‘Child Labour and the International Labour Organisation’s Convention 182: A Critical Perspective’, Journal of Health Psychology 10(3): 475–84.

15.

Freymond

Cameron

(2006) Towards Positive Systems of Child and Family Welfare: International Comparisons of Child Protection, Family Service and Community Caring Systems. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

16.

Goodmark

(2010) ‘Mothers, Domestic Violence, and Child Protection: An American Legal Perspective’, Violence against Women 16(5): 524–9.

17.

Gilbert

Parton

Skiveness

(eds) (2011) Child Protection Systems: International Trends and Orientations. New York: Oxford University Press.

18.

Gray

(2005) ‘Dilemma of International Social Work: Paradoxical Processes in Indigenization, Universalism and Imperialism’, International Journal of Social Welfare 14: 231–8.

19.

Gray

(2010) ‘Theories of Social Work Practice’, in Nicholas

Rautenbach

Maistry

(eds) Introduction to Social Work, pp. 75–102. Cape Town: Juta.

20.

Gray

Fook

(2004) ‘The Quest for a Universal Social Work: Some Issues and Implications’, Social Work Education 23(5): 625–44.

21.

Harper

Jones

Tincatti

(2009) ‘Opportunities and Challenges in Promoting Policy- and Practice-relevant Knowledge on Child Rights’, Children’s Rights at a Crossroads: A Global Conference on Research on Child Rights, 30 November–2 December, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

22.

Healy

(2007) ‘Universalism and Cultural Relativism in Social Work Ethics’, International Social Work 50(1): 11–26.

23.

Huegler

Lyons

Pawar

(2012) ‘Setting the Scene’, in Lyons

Hokenstad

Pawar

Huelgelr

Hall

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of International Social Work. London: SAGE.

24.

Hulme

(2005) ‘Policy Transfer and the Internationalization of Social Policy’, Social Policy & Society 4(4): 417–25. doi: 10.1017/S147474605002605.

25.

Ife

(2000) ‘Localized Needs and a Globalized Economy: Bridging the Gap with Social Work Practice’, Canadian Social Work 2 (Social Work and Globalization Special Issue): 13–29.

26.

Jones

Truell

(2012) ‘The Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development: A Place to Link Together and Be Effective in a Globalized World’, International Social Work 55(4): 454–72.

27.

Katz

Pinkerton

(eds) (2003) Evaluating Family Support: Thinking Internationally, Thinking Critically. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

28.

Lundy

Envoy

(2011) ‘Children’s Rights and Research Processes: Assisting Children to (In)formed Views’, Childhood 19(1): 129–44.

29.

Midgley

(1981) Professional Imperialism: Social Work in the Third World. London: Heinemann.

30.

Midgley

(2000) ‘Globalization, Capitalism and Social Welfare’, Canadian Social Work 2 (Social Work and Globalization Special Issue): 13–28.

31.

Midgley

(2001) ‘Issues in International Social Work: Resolving Critical Debates in the Profession’, Journal of Social Work 1(1): 21–6.

32.

Midgley

(2010) ‘The Developmental Perspective in Social Work’, in Midgley

Conley

(eds) The Theory and Practice of Developmental Social Work, pp. 3–30. New York: Oxford University Press.

33.

Midgley

Conley

(2010) The Theory and Practice of Developmental Social Work. New York: Oxford University Press.

34.

Osei-Hwedie

(2002) ‘Indigenous Practice: some Informed Guesses, Self Evident and Possible’, Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 38(4): 311–23.

35.

Patel

(1992) Restructuring Social Welfare: Options for South Africa. Johannesburg: Raven Press.

36.

Patel

(2005) Social Welfare and Social Development in South Africa. South Africa: Oxford University Press.

37.

Patel

(2009) The Gendered Character of Care in the Non-profit Sector in South Africa. Johannesburg: Centre for Social Development in Africa and Geneva, UNRISD. www.uj.ac.za/csda.

38.

Patel

Hochfeld

(forthcoming) ‘Developmental Social Work in South Africa: Translating Policy into Practice’, International Social Work, first published online 11 June 2012. Doi 10.1177/0020872812444481.

39.

Patel

Hochfeld

Schmid

(2012) ‘Transforming Social Services in South Africa: NPO Managers’ Perspectives’, Administration in Social Work 36: 212–30. Doi 10.1080/03643107.2011.567321

40.

Pinkerton

Muhangi

(2009) ‘Linking Social Welfare Development with Cash Transfers and Education to Promote Child Well-being: What We Know and What We Need to Know’, Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies 4(1): 55–67.

41.

Platt

(2011) Child Poverty in Historical Perspective: From 1900 to the Present. Routledge Advances in Sociology. Abingdon: Routledge.

42.

Rankopo

Osei-Hwedi

(2011) ‘Globalization and Culturally Relevant Social Work: African Perspectives on Indigenization’, International Social Work 54(1): 137–47.

43.

Ripoli-Nunez

Rohner

(2006) ‘Corporal Punishment in Crosscultural Perspective: Directions for a Research Agenda’, Cross-cultural Research 40(3): 220–49.

44.

Rizzini

Bush

(2002) ‘Editorial: Globalisation and Children’, Childhood 9(4): 371–4.

45.

Rowe

Hanley

Morena

Mould

(2000) ‘Voices of Social Work Practice: International Reflections on the Effects of Globalization’, Canadian Social Work 2 (Social Work and Globalization Special Issue): 65–87.

46.

Schmid

(2010) ‘A History of the Present: Uncovering Discourses in (South African) Child Welfare’, British Journal of Social Work 40(7): 2102–18; doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcp124.

47.

Schmid

(2012a) Trends in Child Welfare in South Africa from 2001–2010. CSDA Research Report. Johannesburg: Centre for Social Development in Africa, University of Johannesburg.

48.

Schmid

(2012b) ‘Child Welfare and Children’s Mental Health Needs in the Context of Development: An Integrate (South African) Approach’, in Nayar

(ed.) Child and Adolescent Mental Health, pp. 200–15. New Delhi: SAGE India.

49.

Sewpaul

Hölscher

(2004) Social Work in Times of Neo-liberalism: A Post-modern Discourse. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

50.

Smith

(2008) ‘South African Social Work Education: Critical Imperatives for Social Change in the Post-apartheid and Post-colonial Context’, International Social Work 51: 371, doi: 10.1177/0020872807088083.

51.

Spolander

Pullen-Sansfacon

Brown

Engelbrecht

(2011) ‘Social Work Education in Canada, England and South Africa: A Critical Comparison of Undergraduate Programmes’. International Journal of Social Work 54(6): 816–31.

52.

Triegaardt

(2004) ‘Globalisation and Social Work: A Social Policy Consideration and Social Work’s Role in South Africa’, The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher 16(3): 249–62.

53.

Triegaardt

(2009) ‘Pursuing a Social Development Agenda in the Context of Globalization: A South African Perspective’, Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 45(1): 1–10.

54.

Waldegrave

(2006) ‘Contrasting National Jurisdictional and Welfare Responses to Violence to Children’, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 27: 57–76.

55.

Wall

(2011) ‘Can Democracy Represent Children? Toward a Politics of Difference’, Childhood 19(1): 86–100.

56.

Yunong

Xiong

(2012) ‘Further Discussion of Indigenization in Social Work: A Response to Gray and Coates’, International Journal of Social Work 55(1): 40–52.