ABSTRACT
Glennerster et al. gave an account of the origins of territorial justice which makes it surprising that mine was the statement of it as a general evaluative principle and policy goal. The Mark II methodology was based on assumptions about service inputs and outcomes of key evaluative importance to policy-makers. The basis was the assumption that there were broadly supported policy paradigmatic assumptions implying a collective utility function and production functions. The Personal Social Services Research Unit itself could have tackled it but for the entirely fortuitous opportunity to experiment with bottom-led service allocation and development through micro-budgeting in the Kent Community Care Project. Matching Resources to Needs and the Kent Community Care Project was to provide a bottom-up model to complement the post-Seebohm top-down arrangements and elaborate its mission. It was to improve effectiveness, fairness and efficiency, partly by increasing responsiveness to user and carer needs, expectations, ambitions, values and wishes.
