Market penetration and universalism – new conditions and featuresin the welfare state. The example of elderly care
Jan Petersson& Staffan Blomberg[1]
A. The institutional model of welfare
1. Universalism
The basic industrial model for social policy developed during the 1900-th century was a model for poverty relief.It was closely connected to a moral issue of blame (Douglas 1992). The basic trait of social policy was one of selectivism - directed towards poor in need. It has been argued that it brought with it stigmatization by for example Richard Titmuss, the famous British author on social policy (1963).
During the 20th century much effort was made to lift the issue to one of citizenship. It was done mainly done by social democratic politicians and the labour movement thatargued for a spectrum of institutionalized rights to grow. This was also a claim from citizens’ movements – like the black community in the US that wanted to get full citizens rights. This movement fought against discrimination and wished to raise the level of citizens’ rights, which is a universalist concept.Universalismcould be defined as “targeting without means testing” (Stjernö 1998). The essence of such a policy is to allow for needs tests but not means tests.One has to observe that also universal policies usethresholds/trigger criteria (Pratt 1997). One can for example not get child allowance if you do not have children; to use a simple example). From a territorial perspective universalism also has to be nationally valid. This is an important aspect on those welfare components that are decentralized to local governments.
A conclusion is that universalismis allowed to bee combined withpositive selectivism but not negative. Examples of positive selectivism areaffirmative action and positive discrimination. Universalism has often been criticizedbecause it includes also the “rich”. It is argued by those proponents that a demarcation line should be used on a scale
Not for the rich <------Only for the poor
The problem with this demarcation is that it can be defined by both nodes, and if and when the welfare state withdraws the focus moves towards the right of the node. This means that even if the starting rhetoric is to exclude (not) the rich it easily changes to include (only) the poor.
The scope of universalism (level of implementation) is also tricky and can be centredround fairtreatment (conservatives); equal opportunity (liberals)or equitable outcome (social democrats).
Three basic models for welfare emergedin Europeduring the 20th century according to Richard Titmuss (1974):
- The Residual Welfare Model – based on need
- The Industrial Achievement Performance Model – based on merit
- The Institutional Redistributive Model – based on citizenship
Universalism was by Titmuss the specific feature of the Institutional Redistributive Model for welfare basically associated with the social democratic tradition (Esping Andersen 1990).
2. The erosion of universalism
After a period of consensus emerging after the 2nd world war – the golden age (Pierson 1991) - the growth of social spending and the widening of universalism was questioned.There were many factors that undermined the institutional model of welfare in the 1970-90s.
- The model did not live up to its promises – low authenticity
- The model was know longer a historic compromise – lessened consensus
- The model did not solve inequalities – low effectiveness
The neo-liberals said it lacked incentives, it madecitizens passive, created few incentives to stay out, it increased public spending instead of private and it was not cost efficient. The postmodernistsquestioned it: “Postmodernity, in the name of diversity and difference, rejects Enlightenment rationalism’s attempts to find universal valid solutions to universally experienced problems of the human conditions” (Thompson & Hoggett 1996).The idea of universalism, equality and impartiability was traded in for concepts of responsiveness, diversity and choice.
The idea of status as citizenship (TH Marshall), i.e. position and outcome was further connected to values, i.e. perspectives.New were the ideas of ethnicity and gender as new cleavages between groups. Poverty, deprivation were abandoned for the notion of social exclusion that was not jus quantitative but also qualitative.The agenda for social policy turned towardsparticularism, empowerment and advocacy.To connect to the words difference and diversity the claim for policy has to respond to different people in different ways ((Drake 2001). This makes a claim for diverse policies in the light of different claims.
The question is if this has to mean that we leave the old paradigm or as Thompson & Hoggett (ibid) also recognize,equality does not imply sameness. Particularism is empty if it is not connected to an underlying idea of citizenship and universalism and the logic of universalism deliberately abstracts from difference to treat all fair. In this paper I will argue that universalism has another dimension mainly in the light of globalisation and the reform agenda that is characterized as New Public Management. This is the purpose of this paper.
B. Different nations, diverse policies?
Policy regimes came to differ in Europe – compare the models above. Generally there are various forces that shape the policy of a nation. These are structures (forces to become alike) and actors (allowing for diversification).The following chart sums up the picture. To explain some differences and similarities mono-causal explanation can give a clue. To understand a complex pattern multi-causal realism should be brought in. This means that both structural forces as well as actor driven polices should be brought in. This implies the use of causal realism (Brante 1997).
StructuresActors
IndustrializationPoliticians
DemographyExperts
Risk groupsMobilized groups
Globalization
Administrative solutions
There is also a double connection. Structures need mediators (actors) while actors work within constraints (structures) – cf. Aldrich (1992); Giddens (1987). As an example, budget deficits (a structural problem) will not become recognized in policy (acted upon) unless it is seen as a major political problem. A demand for a new public pension scheme (action) will be made difficult by the structure of an existing one, i.e. path dependency (structure). I will return to this. The importance of mediating factors is brought in. This is more generally recognized in the change of looking at the import of new trends that is worked out by the sociological neo-institutional school. A diffusion perspective (with low recognition of actors) is exchanged for a transportation metaphor with active translation from local actors in their specific context.
C. Decentralization, difference and diversity
1. Decentralization to local governments
My main story here is to discuss universalism from a geographic territorial perspective - in a frame of supranational, national and local social policy.
One common critique of national social policy has been that it does not allow for local difference. The perspective of citizenship has been questioned from a democratic perspective. Why should not social policy and priorities around it be allowed to be reflected upon and met by the local governments rather than by the nation state?
This quest has been accentuated by the fact that firstly, the (Swedish) state has been taking part in anationaldecentralization of the social services. The Social Services act in Sweden is a frame law which allows the scope of many of these services to be decided on local level. New demands from the state on local provision of these have further not been followed by complete funding which has opened up a cleavage between the state and the local governments over the level of ambitions. Secondly, the dialogue between the European union and its member countries has to a large extent by passing the nation state. Implementation of new policy has taken the roadfrom EU to regions; an orientation that has been discussed under for example the name of glocalization(Pierson 2000).At first sight the trend should be that local differences within nations are accentuated in this new process of communication.
But let me return to the problem of differences and similarities in a national context in a process of general decentralization. A multi-causal frame is useful also in this case. A distinction between structures and actors and the parallel use of these forces is useful also in this case. Also at the local, municipal level this will help to open up the discussion of local difference and how it is translated also into local diversity in policy. In a study on priorities on the local level (Petersson 2006) I used the following model:
StructuresActors
External forces International fashions Networks
National regulation Normativebodies
Consultants
Internal forces Administrative bodiesPoliticians
Civil servant Professions Local traditions Opinions
Local newspapers
As in chart one,one can understand the model also in terms of structures restricting actions and actions influencing structures in an ongoing process of change. For example the local press is the mediator between local opinions and local policy. The state is using different mechanisms of steering and control to make local actors conform their policies to the intentions of the state. Local actors respond but also try to change conditions if their priorities differ from those of the state.
2. Globalization and modern organizations
The notion of globalization has become a feature of the modern world that has to be recognized in almost every sphere of transformation of societies - also in social policy.
Globalization can be viewed as a complex totality, but it is also possible to look at some of its specific aspects. I will do the latter. Beck (2000) talks of it in terms of globalism, which identifies the specific economic aspects.The story is that economic forces have become transnational to an extent we have not recognized before. These economic forces make claim for national transformation to adapt to the general economic reforms of free competition and efficiency, bypassing the national political level and diminishing the political sphere in general.For example Hirst & Thompson (1998) maintains that globalization has reduced the capacity of states to act autonomously on their societies” (p. 263).
One aspect of this transformation has been recognized by Rövik (1998) who talks about super standards travelling around the world in an increasing pace. He uses neo-institutional theory to explain this. Modern organizations do not act as rational entities in relation to fulfilling goals, but focuses their rationality towards creating symbols that indicate their success. They are to a larger extent engaged in “window-dressing” rather than with actual performance. Tolook like others also makes you feel safe and modern (Furusten & Lerdell 19989). Organizationstranslate these modernities to serve their specific purpose (Latour 1986). This is a feature of a modern organisation and it implies that they have a low defence against importing new concepts that are proclaimed useful. Sahlin-Andersson (2000) concludes: “Reformers do not act only in an isolated national context but learn from each other, imitate each other, react to each other and present their reforms to each others” (ibid. p 2).
In this process there are transmitting forces. This is recognized in the discussion of a new form of governancewhere new international networks work for change. Altogether the working of these transmitting forces can be characterized as a process of convergence and a pressure of conformity on national policies. It should be seen that it also works within countries. Also on this level, there exist “... a number of mediators of reform ideas and experience such as organizations, consultants and publications.” (ibid. p 3).
There are two points that I want to address further in this process of globalization. These are firstly the economic reform agenda most often addressed as New Public Management. Secondly it is the change of mechanisms of steering and control related to governance.
3. New Public Management and the Audit Society
New Public Management can be identified as a reform agenda for the public sector. This agenda puts pressure on the public bodies to leave their identityas a bureaucratic authority towards becoming a market entrenched organization. With the concept of NPM come claims for change applicable to the public sector as a whole that are disconnected from time and space. They are centred round the notions of efficiency and choice.
Basically then NPM “… consists of a cluster of ideas borrowed from the conceptual framework of private sector administration practices!” (Power 1997, p. 43). In this process of claim for change the word “best practice” has become a key word.The word best practice has two determining points. It asks for evidence of performance of social programs to be used. Evaluationbecomes a key concept. Best practice also involves reaching goals at lowest costs. Another key word is “bench-marking” which looks even more closely to the efficient use of resources. The route is to increase the awareness of how “alike” actors behave in terms of use of means/resources. In the Swedish case social authorities serve local units by delivering “twin” units - units that have the same characteristic as to population composition, size, taxes etc. Another concept that sets focus on the use of resources and procedures in authorities issystems of quality assurance. The most prominent is TQM. But as Tuckman (1995) concludes, the name is a bit confusing since TQM is basically not an evaluation of the quality of a product (the term comes from industrial processing) but of practices and procedures of manufacture and provision. Brought together, these components direct public bodies to focus on means, i.e. resources/procedures, and less on goals/outcome. This is another way of observing that the political sphere (goal formulation) is weekend and technical considerations (means used) strengthened in the public sector.
There is another aspect to this development which can be connected to Michael Powers “Audit Society”. The audit society proclaims new and distinct forms of documentation to come through. This is crucial in a development that is characterized by a new steering/control model. Instead of relying on inspection top-down,this practice claims for proof of accountabilitybottom up. The term “excellence“becomes the attainable idea and should be coined by the organization itself.
The essence of the audit society is that it is linked to a low form of steering from above. It is related to governance rather than government.Governance as notion is closely linked to this new form of steering and control since as Power conclude it is characterized by an “…increasingly prominent role for internal control systems” (ibid, p 41-42). This new control system hook up towards governments through a sort of Foucault defined self-disciplinary practice. Modern organizations are afraid of being different from others. Much pressure is set on them to explain while they are different.
To sum up governments have lost it capacity to steer but have at the same time opened up for a new forms of control.Weekend steering is exchanged for enhanced control.
D. Universalism in new clothes
In the first paragraph in this text I concluded that a process away from universalism has strongly been put forward from a perspective where it is recognized that groups in society have different claims, from poor evidence of success in closing income gaps as well as from a post-modern outlook. I also showed that from my interest – regarding state and local policies – there has beena trend towards decentralization that opened up for local differences to be recognized in diverse policies – different ambitions and different priorities on the local level.
But actual development does not conform to this. I discuss that new modes of control of means usedtend to sneak back into the freedom of policy formation, i.e. polices and goals are made non-political and become technical, administrative issues. It is a process of standardization.
As a very strange conclusion this implies that hocus pocus – universalism as a concept closely linked to citizenship is back again. But this notion of citizenship is less political. It is characterized as a process of sharing certain goals that become nationally acceptable through the focus on means used.
References
Aldrich, Howard E. (1992). Incommensurable Paradigms? Vital Signs from Three Perspectives. I Reed, Michael & Hughes, Michael (eds.). Rethinking Organization. Directions in Organization Theory and Analysis. London: Sage
Beck, Ulrich (2000). What is globalization? Malden, Mont.: Polity Press
Brante, Thomas (1997). Kausal realism och sociologi. Sociologisk forskning 1997:12 s 311-335
Douglas, Mary (1992). Risk and Blame: essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge
Drake, Robert F. (2001). The Principles of Social Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Esping-Andersen, Gösta (1990). Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press
Furusten, Staffan & Lerdell, David (1998). Managmentisering av förvaltningen. I Ahrne, Göran (red.). Stater som organisationer. Stockholm: Nerenius & Santérus FörlagFuråker, Bengt (1976). Stat och arbetsmarknad – studier i svensk rörlighetspolitik. Lund: Arkiv
Giddens, Anthony (1987). Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press
Hirst, Paul & Thompson, Grahame (1998). Myten om den globala ekonomin. Stockholm. Atlas
Latour, Bruno (!986). ”The Powers of Association” I Law, J (ed.) Power, Action and Belief. London: Routledge: Keegan Paul
Petersson, Jan (2006). Prioriteringar och processer inom socialtjänsten. Exempel från åtta kommuner. Malmö: Bokbox förlag
Pierson, Christopher (1991), Beyond the Welfare State. Cambridge: Polity Press
Pierson, Paul (2000). The New Politics of the WelfareState. I Pierson, Christopher & Castles, Francis G. (eds). The Welfare State Reader. Cambridge: Polity press
Power, Michael (1997). The Audit Society. Oxford: Oxford University press
Pratt, Alan (1997). Universalism or Selectivism? The Provision of Services in the Modern Welfare State. I Lavalette, Michael & Pratt, Alan (eds). Social Policy. A Conceptual and Theoretical Introduction. London: Sage
Rövik, Kjell-Arne (2000/1998). Moderna organisationer. Malmö: Liber
Sahlin-Andersson, Kerstin (2000). National, International and Transnational Constructions of New Public Management. SCORE Rapportserie 2000:4
Stjernö, Steinar (1998). The Scandinavian Social Service model. I Flösser, Gaby och Otto, Hans-Uwe (eds.). Towards More Democracy in Social Services. Models and Culture of Welfare. New York/Berlin. Walter de Gruyter
Thompson, Simon & Paul Hoggett (1996). Universalism, selectivism and particularism. Towards a postmodern social policy. Critical Social Policy 46. Vol 16 pp 21- 43