From a ‘welfare state’ to a ‘welfare society ’?

1. From a ‘welfare state’ to a ‘welfare society’? HÅKAN JOHANSSON (prof.), school of social work, lund university, sweden

2. Background and outlineof presentation • Coordinates research group on civil society and voluntary social work • The aimwiththis presentation is toexplorevoluntaryorganizations’ (VOs) role in the Swedish welfarestate: currentchanges and state-of-the-art • Part 1. Key features of the Swedish/Nordic social model • Part 2. Changes in governmentand governance • Part 3. Employment and service provision • Part 4. Conclusion

3. The Swedish welfare model: key features • A heuristicdevicewithmanynames: A Social Democratic Welfare stateregime; ‘a Nordic social model’, ‘a Nordic Social Market Economy’ or ‘an Institutional-redistributive model’ • Extensive public (state) involvement in transfer and service delivery (social security and social welfare services) • Public welfare systems based on principles of universalism and social rights • Welfare policies colored by ideals of redistribution, egalitarian values, and the ambition to secure universal access to income maintenance and services within health, care and education. • Close link between welfare policies and active labour market policies; wide ranging institutionalized collaboration between the social partners (at all levels); • High level of social trust between citizens and between citizens and public authorities • Voluntaryorganizations (VO) – a footnote in Esping-Andersen’sclassicwork from 1990!

4. The Swedish welfare model: what about voluntaryorganizations • Sweden in international comparisons …. • Tradition ofpopularmovementorganizations, extensive membershipbased associations and schoolofdemocracy (labourmovement, temperancemovement, women’smovement etcetera) • Provision of voice and leisureactivitiesare central, not welfare service production • Fundingcomes from membershipfees and government subsidies, not so muchphilantrophy, private donations or governmentcontracts • Interconnectednesswith the politicalsphere, partners in corporativist arrangements • VO, historically a forerunner, the avantgarde and a cornerstone in welfareproduction

5. The Swedish welfaremodel: welfarestateregimemodels vs. welfare mix models Market State Civil societyorganizations Family

6. VO’s and the Swedish welfare model: an institutionalizedrole under change? • Scholarshavedetected a series ofongoingchanges over the last decades • Fundingregimes – morecontract and less public subsidies • Membershipprofile – moreorganizationswith less members • Moreprofessionalorganizations and business like organizations • Morevolunteers and donors, and evencharity oriented organizations • More public contracts and less criticaladvocacy • …. from ’voice to service’? • Issuethathavebecomepoliticallysalientwithchange in government, Centre-ConservativeGovernment from 2006 and onwards

7. Changes in government and governance: main elements • Rhetorical and conceptualchanges: from popularmovementorganizationsto ’idea-basedorganizations’ and ’civil society’ • Emphasis on dialogue and consultationwithVO’s in a widearrayof policy sectors • Partnership forum. Wide coverageofCSOs and keypoliticians. • Public authoritiesresponsibilitytocooperatewithCSOs • Compacts/Agreements in social welfare; integration, culture and human rightspolicies • New Acts and systems topromotediversificationof service providers, public, private for-profit and voluntary non-profit organizations

8. Changes in government and governance: new ambitions and ideologicalcritique? GovernmentDeclaration (October 2006) • The basis for security [trygghet] and community [gemenskap] are based upon a strong civil society such as associations, sports movements, churches, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. The solidarity of the public welfare system is a complement to a society which is increasingly characterized by compassion, responsibility and idealism • Key articles by Ministers in charge (June 2007) • There has for long been an ideological blindness in Sweden to what the nonprofit sector is contributing and could help with. The public has not been willing or able to see and relate to the nonprofit sector as the actor in society it is - and could be. Instead of a respectful close relationship - but with a clear division between nonprofits and the public - the nonprofit sector have sometimes been neglected, sometimes institutionalized in the State's narrow templates

9. Changes in government and governance: national agreements A national agreementwith VOs in social welfarepolicies • UK Compactserved as a rolemodel • Government: strengthenvoluntaryorganizations voice function and toencouragediversificationof service providers • Mixed positions among VOs • A total of 80 national VOs participated in deliberation and discussion • Formal documentcompleted in october 2008 • Nowsigned by approx 50 organizations An agreementwithsixprinciples • 1) Autonomy and independence; 2) Dialogue: 3) Quality; 4) Continuity; 5) Transparency and 6) Diversity From politicalsaliencetooblivion? • Agreements in several policy areas, butlostsaliencenationally • Fewagreementslocally, but in major cities/regions (Stockholm, Gothenburg and the Region ofSkåne)

10. Changes in government and governance: models for diversificationof providers? Aimstoencouragecitizen-consumership Status ’freedomof choice systems’ at locallevel Localelderly and disabilitycare services: A majorityof Swedish municipalitiesimplemented and/or areaboutimplementfreedomofchocie systems. Only 15 per cent decided NOT toimplement. Clear connectionbetweenpoliticalmajority at locallevel and decision toimplement Butlimitedknowledge on whatimplications for VOs • Background: different effortsto foster public procurement/contractingout • New Act on ’freedomof choice systems’ – foster diversityof providers and consumer choice (2008) • Policy fields: elderlycare and disabilitycare, health- and medicalcare and activelabour market services. Voluntary for municipalities, not for PES • Public controlof providers: iffollowing general standards (no pricecompetition), all providers treatedequally • VO not the drivers ofchange

11. No. of persons employed in welfare service sectors, all spheres (1) Source: Statistics Sweden, Företagsregistret (Hartmann 2011). Including service sectorselderlycare, disabilitycare, IOF, childcare service and education. Definition based on judicial form in Företagsregister.

12. No. of persons employed in welfare service sectors, voluntary sector (2) Source: Westlund 2003; Wijkström & Einarsson 2006; Trydegård2001; SCB 2006; Westlund 2007; Prop. 2009/10:55; SCB 2010

13. No. of persons employed in elderlycare and disabilitycare in for-profit and non-profit organizations (3) Source: Szehebely 2011. Shareof all employedwithinelderlycare and disabilitycare services. Database: SCB Företagsdatabasen Note: Lightgrey = for profit and darkgrey= not-for profit.

14. Conclusions • A changingrole for VOs in the Swedish welfarestate: whatabout ’from voice to service’ • If weaimto understand a changingwelfarestate – do address the right actors and relations? • What kind ofmodel is emerging: a welfarestateor a welfaremix model? • Invitation to an international and comparativedebate on the roleof VOs in changingwelfarestates: in the backdropof the crisis

15. Contact details • Håkan Johansson (Dr. Professor); Schoolof Social Work; Lund University; Box 23; SE-221 00 LUND, Sweden. • E-mail: Hakan.Johansson@soch.lu.se • Telephone: +46 (0)46 2220988.