Draft, please do not circulate or quote

Transcription

1 Does ideology make a difference for government-nonprofit relationships in the Swedish welfare state: a study of local authorities policies and practices Authors: Håkan Johansson 1, Malin Arvidson 2 & Staffan Johansson 3 Paper for Voluntas conference on The Welfare Mix, Hybridity and Government Nonprofit Relationships in Post-Modern Welfare States March 21st and 22nd 2014 Copenhagen, Denmark. 4 Draft, please do not circulate or quote 1 School of Social Work, Lund University, Sweden. Hakan.Johansson@soch.lu.se; 2 School of Social Work, Lund University, Sweden. Malin.Arvidson@soch.lu.se 3 Department of Social Work, Gothenburg University, Sweden, Staffan.Johansson@socwork.gu.se 4 The paper draws on a current research project funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Research Council on Health, Working Life and Welfare on Between Advoacy and Service - Voluntary organizations function in local welfare societies 1

2 Introduction The Swedish welfare state holds a salient position in comparative welfare state research as well as in comparative nonprofit studies (e.g. Esping-Andersen 1990; Salamon & Anheier 1998). It is generally seen as the archetype of a Social democratic welfare state, mainly granting citizens universal public social services and universal social protection systems. Nonprofit organizations as well as for-profit actors have generally held a marginal position in producing welfare services for the population. The Swedish as well as Nordic third sector has primarily relied on voluntary efforts; large membership based organizations and rarely involved professional service provider organizations (e.g. Svedberg & Olsson 2010; Wollebeak & Selle 2008; Selle & Wollebaek 2010). The relationship between the state and for-profit/nonprofit actors is, however, in a state of flux. Recent research demonstrates increasing privatization as for-profit actors have taken on a much greater role in producing public services for larger groups of the population, above all with regard to school and caring issues (e.g. Hartmann 2011). Since the turn of the Millennium researchers have also piled evidence of a changed order in how the Swedish government defines the sector (e.g. Wijkström & Einarsson 2006, Svedberg & Olsson 2010). These changes have become more evident with the introduction of the present Centre-Conservative government, in office since In his first opening speech, the Conservative Prime Minister expressed that the solidarity of the public welfare system was a complement to a society that to a great degree is characterised by compassion, responsibility and idealism Increased cooperation among public, private and the non-profit sectors is necessary to develop our society (Declaration of government, Sep 2006). These and other ideological statements have been reflected in a series of national reforms, e.g. the introduction of National Compact models in the areas of social welfare services and integration, a National Act on Systems of Choice to foster consumer choice and a greater variety of services producers (including for-profit and nonprofit). This paper contributes to an understanding of the practical implications of this alleged shift towards a greater welfare mix in the Swedish welfare state. These implications are captured through directing the empirical focus to local level municipalities. The strong statements expressed by key decision-makers at national level seem to indicate an ideological shift in the 2

3 Swedish welfare state where a Social democrat position, potentially representing an allencompassing and inclusive welfare state, is traded for a Liberal/right wing position that at least in principle embraces the marketization of the welfare state. But to what extent are local governments relationships imbued by local ideological positioning? Do such ideological statements actually matter at local level or is that something that mainly a feature of national politics? In order to explore these issues we need to bring the empirical focus down to local level. The main question analysed in this paper concerns if and how ideology (operationalized as political majority) influence how government voluntary sector relations are structured at local level. 5 Two dimensions of such relations are analysed in greater depth: a) the recognition of voluntary sector issues in local debates and policy-making and the drivers of these debates and b) the role voluntary organizations are expected to play in local services provision. These investigations combined will allow us to explore whether the ideologically driven changes at national level, i.e. the emergence of a new policy regime vis-á-vis the voluntary sector, is materialized and conceptualized in local policies and politics. The paper explores an original survey conducted with a strategic sample of all local authorities in Sweden. The survey was sent to the highest administrative officials in local social services (socialchefer), which we considered being the best actors to answer our questions regarding overall local policies vis-á-vis the voluntary sector, and in particular, with regard to the organization of local welfare production. We followed Statistics Sweden categorization of municipalities into ten municipality categories (following mainly size, yet partly also regional matters), randomly selecting fifty per cent of the municipalities for each category (N=149). The survey was distributed both as a websurvey and by paper (ordinary post service). We sent several reminders by and also by ordinary mail (extra survey) to remind respondents. A total of 89 responses were handed in, however due to e.g. double answers, we ended up having 85 5 Sweden has 290 municipalities which all are governed by a locally elected government. A total of 138 municipalities are governed by a Centre-Right coalition which tend to include a combination of representatives from the Conservative Party, The Liberal Party, the Christian Democrats and the Agrarian Party (often referred to as a right wing government), 109 municipalities are governed by a combination of Left wing parties (mostly the Social democrats, the Left Party and/or the Green Party), and 43 local governments are governed by a Right-Left coalition, often including the Social Democrats together with the Conservative party, being the two largest parties, but can also include a wide variety of other combinations reflecting local conditions and election behavior. 3

4 responses giving us a response rate of 57 %. Due to the relative small N in the study, results can only be moderately generalized to all Swedish municipalities. Approaching the Social Democratic model(s) The voluntary sector status in academic thinking of a Social democratic model has very much followed the initial remark made by Esping-Andersen a couple of decades ago. He expressed that some insist that the triad [state, market and family] should rightfully be presented as a diamond, with a fourth leg reserved for the third sector, such as charity, co-operatives, and voluntary associations. In principle, I would have no objections. In practice, it may make little empirical difference where its role is more than peripheral it is because it is subsidized by the state i.e. a semi-public delivery agency (Esping-Andersen 1999:36). To what extent his statement has had any actual influence on the ways by which welfare scholars have continued to be welfare state scholar remains a contested issue, yet it is evident that third sector or voluntary sector issues are rarely part of the codified reasoning on the Social democratic model (e.g. Erikson et al. 1987; Kautto et al. 2001; Andersen et al. 2007; Esping-Andersen 1990, 1999). In comparative welfare state and social policy research, the Social democratic model have mainly been seen as an inclusionary and universalistic welfare state, dominated by publicly financed and publicly provided welfare services and social security benefits (see e.g. Kautto et al 2001; Hvinden & Johansson 2007). Academic investigations into comparative non-profit organizations have, however, clarified these positions and demonstrated that non-profits, third sector and voluntary organizations play a role in all welfare state regime typologies, yet with different form, size and significance in relation to the public, e.g. much more based on volunteering efforts and also on the expressive function rather than the service functions (e.g. Evers & Laville 2004; Salamon & Anheier 1997 & 1998; Sokolowski & Salamon 2003). Albeit different in focus, these analytical perspectives rarely addressed the ideational content of each model, but rather focused on the political contexts and constellations of power among stakeholders for the analysis of welfare and non-profit regimes, arguing that historical legacies matter (traditions and institutions) as well as the constellation of social forces for the structure of the welfare/nonprofit sector in different countries (ibid.). 4

5 Such analytical endeavors have started to proliferate within comparative studies into civil society, third sector or voluntary sector research. In a recently completed issue of Journal of Political Ideologies scholars provide us with a set of analytical perspectives on how we can unpack the idea of ideology into studies of state voluntary sector relationships (Kendall & Deakin 2010). Strachwitz & Zimmer (2010) take a long historical perspective and question the general assumption that one political tradition fit with one country s civil society system. Taking stock of an analysis of civil society in Germany, they maintain that a variety of political traditions have been influential, implying a complex mix of liberal, Catholic and social democratic traits for any depiction of the ideological components that underpin state civil society relations (ibid.). Trägårdh follows a similar line of thought, yet deliberatively avoids talking about a limited set of political (theoretical) traditions, instead put forward that country s (in this respect Sweden) has political cultures that go beyond political traditions such as liberalism, social democracy, rather forming a particular type of social contract. Whereas these two contributions invite us to approach ideology in terms of historically embedded sets of ideas and traditions, Kendall (2010) challenges us to think of ideology much more in terms of a set of contested ideas that are put forward by actors in present politics, both by representatives from political parties and organized civil society. Government third sector issues are hence conceptualized not as a result of long lasting political traditions, but as a result of the contentious and disputed actions that take place in a contemporary political space or terrain. These contributions thereby encourage us to think of ideology as sets of ideas, values and belief systems embedded in long lasting political traditions and cultures and/or as an aspect of present and ongoing current political contestations among political actors. Present debates on government voluntary sector relations in the Social democratic model illustrates a number of such ideological fault lines, partly embedded in the political traditions and cultures, yet also the object of present debates or even disputes. One such debate certainly regards the boundary between public and voluntary sector efforts in the field of welfare production. Much academic reasoning on the Social democratic model have continued to analyse the structure and status of civil society and the voluntary sector in a Social democratic welfare model, both confirming and challenging Salamon & Anheier s view on the sector as mainly expressive and based on the volunteer efforts of large membership based organisations (e.g. Selle & Wollebaek 2010, Olsson 5

6 & Svedberg 2010). Scholars have analysed the potentially changed function of voluntary sector organizations in the Social democratic model. It si general claimed that the institutionalized role of voluntary sector organizations is in a flux pointing to ongoing changes in terms of gradual shifts from voice to service or from members to volunteers and increasing professionalization among voluntary organizations (Wijkström & Einarsson 2006; Papakostas 2006; Olsson & Svedberg 2009). Extensive empirical investigations, however, show that the alleged shift from public to non-public service providers not only involves voluntary sector organizations, but even more so private for-profit organizations, as they are engaged to deliver services on behalf of the public sector across a variety of welfare areas (Hartmann 2011). Although we can observe an increase in the numbers of people employed in non-public welfare services, the bulk of this increase is mainly in regular companies and not so much in non-profit service producers. These boundaries between public and non-public service provision are certainly ideologically charged as private (above all for-profit) provision is not seen as a part of this Social democratic model (e.g. Hartmann 2011). This illustrates two potential ideological fault lines in the Social democratic model, between the state and for profit actors, and between the state and not-for profit actors. Towards a new policy regime? The idea of the Social democratic model as primarily relying on public efforts rather than voluntary organizations involvement in either planning or delivery of welfare services is a complex matter, both historically (Lundström 2004; Lundström & Svedberg 2003), as well as with regard to present developments. Key political actors in the Swedish welfare state have engaged in debates on the role of voluntary organizations in providing welfare services and a number of recent welfare reforms raise questions regarding the establishment of a new approach to government voluntary sector relations in the Swedish welfare state. We propose three changes that mark the contour of such an emerging institutional architecture regulating state voluntary sector relations: i) general discursive and conceptual changes, ii) novel consultation and governance arrangements, iii) and changes in legal frameworks for service provision. A first component of such a new regime concerns ideological re-conceptualizations regarding what notions underpin current policies. Swedish policy-making in the field has an extensive 6

7 history of emphasizing the educational function of voluntary organizations. This has been eloquently analyzed in previous research and in general portrays voluntary organizations as schools for democracy, based on the long-lasting tradition of so-called popular movements (e.g. the Labour Movement, the Women s movement etcetera). The previous Social Democratic government initiated a green paper to develop the agenda involving proposals regarding financial support to popular movements and related organizations as well as explore proposals for better statistics and research on popular movements and voluntary associations (SOU 2007:66). Before a green paper was complete, a shift in government occurred and a coalition of Centre- Right parties entered into office (in office for the first time since 1994). Although issues regarding the voluntary sector, popular movements or civil society were not on top of the agenda during the election campaigns, they became central for the government partly based on its ambitions to foster privatization. In his first Declaration of government, the Prime Minister expressed that the foundation for safety and community in a society lie in a strong civil society, such as voluntary or sporting movements, churches, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. The solidarity of the public welfare system is a complement to a society increasingly characterized by compassion, responsibility and idealism. A strong civil society is also the foundation of a strong democracy. Increased cooperation between the public, private and nonprofit sectors is necessary for developing our society (Government Declaraction October 2006). Such initial propositions started to materialize as the government continued working on its policies vis-á-vis the voluntary sector. Two Ministers openly argued that there had been an ideological blindness in Sweden to what the nonprofit sector is contributing and could help with, and contended the state had not been willing or able to appreciate the role the nonprofit sector has and could play in society. They maintained that instead of having a close but respectful relationship with clear divisions between nonprofits and the public, the nonprofit sector has sometimes been neglected, sometimes institutionalized in the state's narrow templates (Sabuni & Hägglund 2007). The argument that voluntary sector organizations could (and should) contribute more to the general wellbeing of the citizens turned up again in another government declaration. The prime minister argued that welfare, health and care services should be funded by solidaristic tax contributions and distributed according to need, but even more stressed that 7

8 Sweden needed a greater diversity of service providers to give patients and care takers best possible care and services, i.e. that voluntary care and service providers could play a significant role in this pursuit (Government Declaration September 2007). These statements marked the ideological ambitions of the Centre-Conservative government, seeking to explore new boundaries between public and private, as well as new roles for voluntary organizations. The statements had, however, been modulated to the following government proposition (prop 2009/10:55). Nevertheless, previous policy orientations were criticized (i.e. popular movement policies) for being too narrow and not in line with international development. Instead the government suggested using the notion of civil society as a much more encompassing notion than either a voluntary sector or a popular movement policy, arguing among other things that many voluntary organizations not only rested on the involvement of members and following an associational logic, but also running ordinary businesses, albeit as non-profit organizations. Popular movements and associations are important, but not the only actors in the civil society (prop. 2009/2010:55, p. 47). The government s bill obviously contained several other proposals, yet it was this conceptual change that caused most reactions from political parties and societal actors. The left part argued that the entire government bill was an ideological test and that the term civil society is an expression of bourgeoisie newspeak and a preparation of a different welfare model than we have, and which rests upon charity and voluntary forces (Kulturutskottet 2009/10 KrU7, 108). The Social Democrats defended previous popular movement policies, yet argued that voluntary organizations must not be reduced to subcontractors and that they should not be forced into businesslike models (ibid). Despite these critical comments, the government representatives argued that the notion of civil society was much more encompassing and not as excluding as traditional popular movements, arguing that... there is more in the concept of civil society, than in the concept of popular movement policies (ibid). They also referred to the positive responses they had gained from several major civil society organizations, some of them arguing in favor of a conceptual shift either to the term civil society or the notion of idea-based organizations. 8

9 The second component of the welfare reforms that relate to government voluntary sector relations regards the introduction of new consultation and governance arrangements. An important element of the Swedish institutional context concerns its long history of social corporativism, i.e. institutionalized contacts, negotiations and joint decision making between the state and organized social interests (Lewin 1992; Rothstein 1992). This corporate channel (Rokkan 1999), has however rarely included organizations representing groups outside the economic sphere, except for organizations of the old age pensioners and of persons with disabilities (e.g. Feltenius 2004). Partly reflecting the demise of the corporatist model and partly reflecting the extensive lobbying of a few umbrella networks of voluntary organizations, the government proposed in autumn 2008 to install a so-called Agreement based on the UK Compact. Like the UK Compact, the Swedish Agreement rested on a limited set of principles that ought to guide interactions and relations between public and voluntary sector organizations. These are autonomy and independence (securing the voluntary sector s independence, democratic function and critical position vis-à-vis the state), dialogue (open and inclusive decision-making structures), quality (services provided by voluntary organizations should be evaluated, audited and proven accountable like public and private services), continuity (provide voluntary organizations with stable working conditions, e.g. regarding broad political support for the Agreement), transparency (mutual trust between the state and the sector requires exchange of information and data on planning, services and activities) and diversity (voluntary organizations need to have better conditions to develop services for citizens, which is considered good in itself as a way to address the variety of needs among citizens) (see Johansson et al 2011,& Johansson & Johansson 2012). Important to notice is that the conceptual shifts that had been put forward by the government and representatives of the voluntary sector had not yet made its ways into practical policies as it was an Agreement between the Swedish Government, the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions and the national idea-based organizations in the social sphere. The ambition has since been to encourage the development of local agreements, an issue that has proven difficult. The ambition to explore new consultation and governance arrangements has taken other guises, 9

10 e.g. by the introduction of a national sectoral representative body (2012) gathering key government decision-makers and sixteen representatives from the major voluntary organizations (covering all areas from sports, culture to social welfare), meeting on a regular basis to consult and deliberate on common issues. These examples illustrate shifts in how the government consults and relates to the voluntary sector, yet most of these instances seem to have run into difficulties, e.g. due to unclear structures for representation, unclear mandate and goal orientation. A third component of the welfare reforms, although it partly relates to other issues than state voluntary sector relations directly, is the newly initiated Act on freedom of choice systems (FCS) has changed the general orientation and institutional framework which voluntary organizations and the like operate in, and above all at local level (SFS 2008:962; prop 2008/09:29). In January 2009, Sweden introduced a new Act that primarily sought to make public procurement procedures easier, yet also to encourage the development of a diversification of actors in local public services production as well as to improve consumer citizenship. The Act introduced a model according to which providers (for-profit as well as not for profit) could seek accreditation to a freedom of choice system, installed by the authority at hand. If the applying organization was deemed eligible, i.e. following all the standards established by the authority (which could include issues regarding the competence and knowledge background of staff members; how the services should be evaluated; issues regarding secure personal information processing; economic stability; and quality of services provided), one was granted a contract to provide services for citizens. Arguably, the Act did not place price competition as its primary criteria, instead the system sought to make it easier for a variety of service providers to enter into public contracting. At the other end of the system, this in practice meant that citizens could start to choose between varieties of service providers, often by the means of on-line display of the providers within the system. Initially, areas such as elderly care and disability care, health- and medical care (2009) was included in the reform, later expanded and now also including to active labour market services (2010). The Public Employment Services is responsible for labour market measures and has also started governed directly by the central government to use the Act for instance with regard to 10

11 job-placement services for refugees and immigrants. Local and regional governments are in charge of elderly care and disability care, health- and medical care. Reflecting the strong degree of autonomy on part of local and partly regional governments, it has not been mandatory for them to implement such freedom of choice systems in their daily activities. Voluntary organizations have not been the main driver of change in this reform, yet are nevertheless part of the set of actors that can enter into a freedom of choice system, in either of these policy areas. These three changes combined illustrate a reorientation in government voluntary sector relations in the Swedish welfare state. General conceptual changes broaden the scope for relevant actors for the state to engage with, and vice versa. New modes of consultation engages a variety of actors in national deliberation and policy-making procedures, both organizations mainly operating as expressive as well as service producing. These examples combined with a new overarching system to enhance a variety of service producers, raises questions regarding the contours of a new policy regime of state voluntary sector relations. However, considering the different analytical approaches to ideology expressed in current civil society research, it is an issue for interpretation and empirical investigations whether these changes are mainly an attribute of present party politics and the political agenda of the present government, or part of sweeping changes in the Swedish welfare state regarding the role of the state in the Social democratic model. This is an issue we seek to return to in the concluding parts of the paper. Political recognition of the sector in local debates The introduction of the Agreement between the Government, the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions and the national idea-based organizations in the social sphere is an example of more formalized relations between the government and representatives of voluntary sector organizations. However, the Agreement does not seem to have made its way into local politics. Despite the central government having spent resources to initiate a common observatory (based on representatives from all three sectors) and seed money to initiate local agreements, few municipalities have actually taken the step to formalize their relationships with the sector according to such a way of thinking. At present, only twelve municipalities have complemented 11

12 a document, which they themselves recognize as an agreement with the sector. 6 Moreover, four regions have also enacted such formal agreements (Region Skåne, Örebro län, Västernorrland and Västra Götaland) (see for information on the present status of local agreements). This illustrates a gap between national debates and policy-making procedures, which is even further emphasized in our investigations of local government voluntary sector relationships. Whereas we found politicization and ideological position-takings in national debates and policy-making procedures the picture is somewhat different as we approach local level policies. 7 Although formalizing the relation between government and voluntary sector organizations seem to have been a critical issue for the central government, based on our survey with municipalities across Sweden, we found that this is not of great concern for local municipalities. Based on our survey with representatives of local municipalities, we found that very few of them had an overarching formal policy/strategy with regard to the voluntary sector: 16 per cent stated they had, 64 per cent they had not and 20 per cent that they did not know (N=85). This included government voluntary sector relations in general, we did not find any particular arrangements within the areas of social welfare services. Furthermore, very few municipalities had given an elected politician a formal designated mandate for government voluntary sector cooperation. In most respects we found minor if any differences between political majorities and the degree to which the municipalities had formalized such policies for cooperation. Due to the voluntary nature of the Agreement and the strength of local autonomy, one should not expect that a national agreement would have any direct significance for local level policies, yet the survey results suggest that at local level there seems to be less relevance and/or actors pushing for a political process clarifying the grounds,roles and responsibilities of each partner. Furthermore, in a majority of the municipalities, the formal mandate to handle voluntary sector issues were given to a civil servant (52 per cent stating yes, 41 per cent no and remaining 8 per cent now knowing (N=85)) which supports the impression that relations with the voluntary sector is seen as an administrative rather than political issue. 6 The municipalities are to a large extent the larger cities in Sweden (except Malmö), that is, Stockholm, Göteborg, Uppsala, Norrköping, Linköping, Västerås and Örebro, all of which are major Swedish cities. The other five municipalities are Botkyrka, Tomelilla, Kumla, Värmdö and Trelleborg. 12

13 Further support for this reflection is found when we look at which actors are perceived as driving the debate on the role of the voluntary sector in their municipality. Respondents were given the choice of a wide range of actors inside and outside political institutions to select from (the governing majority, the opposition, particular political parties, individual politicians, civil servants in local administration, local unions, representatives of local voluntary organizations, authorities at national level, national governments and ministries, voluntary organizations at national level, committed individuals etcetera). The most frequently proposed actor was representatives of local voluntary organizations (mentioned by 58 per cent), followed by civil servants in the local administration (44 per cent), the governing majority (38 per cent) and committed individuals (29 per cent). Interesting to note is that no one mentioned local unions and only four per cent mentioned that national governments and ministries were driving the debate locally, but sixteen per cent mentioned that voluntary organizations at national level were significant actors in local debates. Despite what one might have anticipated, only twelve per cent mentioned that there was no debate at all going on in the municipality with regard to the role of the voluntary sector. The ways by which these might vary across local political majorities are still to be proven. On the topic of the status of voluntary sector issues in local political debates, a similar - but partly different - pattern emerged. Based on a set of propositions on the status of the voluntary sector issue at local level, we found that in a majority of right wing led local governments cooperation with voluntary organizations had become an increasingly important issue, slightly less so in left wing local governments (see table 1 below). However, when directly asking whether the local majority actually prioritized voluntary sector issues, both left and right wing led local municipalities seem to prioritize these issues (slightly more in left wing led municipalities). Arguably, our previous proposition that voluntary sector issues is not really an issue for local politicians partly needs to be revised. However, again we find support (among leading civil servants) that cooperation with the voluntary sector has become an increasingly important question for civil servants in the social welfare area, irrespective of local political majorities (see table 1 below). 13

14 Table 1. The status of cooperation with voluntary organizations in local politics Cooperation with voluntary organizations have become an increasingly important local political issue Political Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Total per cent (N) majority disagree Right wing Coalition led Left Wing Total 57,6 % 33,3% 34,5 % 44,2 % 27,3 % 53,3 % 62,1 % 45,5 % 15,2 % 13,3 % 3,4 % 10,4 % 100 % (33) 100 % (15) 100 % (29) 100% (77) Cooperation with voluntary organizations is a key issue in for the political majority Political Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Total majority disagree Right wing Coalition led Left Wing Total 53,1 % 53,3 % 69,0 % 59,2 % 40,6 % 33,3 % 31,0 % 35,5 % 6,3 % 13,3 % 0 % 5,3 % 100% (32) 100% (15) 100% (29) 100% (76) Cooperation with voluntary organizations has become an increasingly important question for civil servants in the social welfare area Political Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Total majority Right wing Coalition led Left Wing Total 80,0 % 53,3 % 75,0 % 73,2 % disagree 14,3% 26,7 % 25,0 % 20,7% 5,7 % 20,0 % 0 % 6,1 % 100 % (35) 100 % (15) 100 % (32) 100 % (82) Note: The figures draw on the abovementioned survey. As mentioned in the text, we cannot find any significant correlations according to political majority and local positions. All answers have been recoded from completely agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, disagree completely and do not know into above categories. Answers do not know, have been recoded as missing. Although the study has limitations, what stand out as a key result are the common positions expressed across local political majorities. In few cases irrespective of political majority at hand we find a limited degree of formalized government voluntary sector relationships. Voluntary sector issues has not been turned into a matter in its own right in local policies and politics. What supports this argument is that civil servants seem to be the key actors within the public institutions and in local political debates (together with voluntary sector representatives). This raises questions about the degree of politicization of voluntary sector issues in local level politics. Our initial question, i.e. if ideology (understood as political majority) affects government voluntary sector relations at local level, appears difficult to confirm. Rather than elected politicians and political parties pushing the political debate, other societal actors and civil servants seem to be the main actors. Local positions on voluntary service provision 14

15 The ambition to foster greater variety of service providers and potentially also engaging voluntary sector organizations in local welfare service provision is a tenor in national debates and policy-making, for instance by the means of the recently installed Act on Freedom of choice systems. Based on current statistics we can observe that a majority of Swedish municipalities have implemented and/or are about implement such FCS. Since the introduction of the FCS reform, a total of 49 per cent (143 municipalities) have implemented such systems within the social care services and 12 per cent (36 municipalities) are about to implement such a system. Among those that have not yet taken a decision, 13 per cent are currently investigating a local FCS and 14 per cent have taken a direct stance not to implement the FCS system. The remaining 34 municipalities have not yet taken a stance on the issue (therefore the total of municipalities reacted amounting to a total of 256) (see table 2 below). Table 2. Status of Freedom of Choice Systems in Swedish municipalities Percentage municipalities reacting to FCS FCS implemented FCS to be implemented FCS under investigation Decision not to implement Political majority ( ) Total % (N) FCS Right 74 % 13 % 10% 2% 100 % wing (136) Left wing 34 % 11 % 23% 33% 100 % (80) Right- 38 % 23 % 13% 28% 100 % Left (40) coalition Total 56 % 14% 15% 16% 100 % (256) Source: SKL Reflecting the ideological nature of this reform, very few of the Right wing led governments have decided not to introduce the FCS and almost everyone has taken a stance on the national reform and we also find a clear significant correlation between political majority and the implementation of FCS (Pearson Chi Square 0,000 sig. and Cramer s V 0,341). Similar correlations can be found in our survey material. Arguably, there is a link between political majority and implementing a local FCS, as right wing led municipalities have been much more inclined to implement such systems and left wing governments more inclined to take a stance on not implementing (and they are also overrepresented when it comes to those municipalities that 15

16 have not reacted at all ). However, the FCS is very much directed towards private for profit provision and we can hence not anticipate that similar positions are expressed when it comes to voluntary sector organizations involvement in service delivery. To explore this further we asked representatives of social services authorities what role voluntary organizations played in local welfare services. We found that the proposition of seeing the voluntary sector as a complement to public welfare services was very much nurtured by most municipalities, irrespective of political majority, and very few municipalities that had a different stake on this. In fact, more or less all respondents expressed that voluntary organizations functioned as a complement to the municipalities. Being confronted with the proposition whether voluntary organizations also served a role as an alternative to the public, answers were more mixed and certainly more negative. Last but not least, when being asked whether voluntary organizations functioned as a replacement to the municipality s welfare services, a majority of municipalities disagreed with that proposition. Interesting to notice is that civil servants in right wing led local governments were much more critical to such a position than their colleagues in left within governments, as a total of 69 per cent stated that they completely disagreed compared to 36 per cent for left wing governments (Blennberger 1993 & 1995, see also Nordfeldt 2000). Table 3 Voluntary organizations functions in local welfare services Voluntary organizations functions as a complement to the municipalities welfare services Political Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Total per cent (N) majority disagree Right wing Coalition led Left Wing Total 85,7 % 87,5 % 93,9 % 89,3 % 8,6 % 12,5 % 3,0 % 7,1 % 5,7 % 0 % 3,0 % 3,6 % 100 % (35) 100 % (16) 100 % (33) 100 (84) Voluntary organizations functions as an alternative to the municipalities welfare services Political Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Total majority Right wing Coalition led Left Wing Total 39,4 % 37,5 % 43,8 % 40,7 % disagree 24,2 % 12,5 % 15,6 % 18,5 % 26,4 % 50,0 % 40,6 % 40,7 % 100 % (33) 100 % (16) 100 % (32) 100 % (81) Voluntary organizations functions as a replacement to the municipalities welfare services Political Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Total majority disagree Right wing Coalition led Left Wing 8,3 % 12,5 % 9,4 % 16,7 % 6,3 % 12,5 % 75,0 % 81,3 % 78,1 % 100 % (36) 100 % (16) 100 % (32) 16

17 Total 9,5 % 13,1 % 77,4 % 100 % (84) Note: All answers have been recoded from completely agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, disagree completely and do not know into above categories. Answers do not know, have been recoded as missing. As mentioned, we cannot find any significant correlations according to political majority and local positions. However, when having the five answer option, for the question Voluntary organizations functions as a replacement to the municipalities welfare services, Chi square 0,044 sig. and Cramer s V 0,306 indicating a weak significant correlation. These categories are not mutually exclusive, yet encourages us to consider an increasing enrollment of voluntary sector organizations as providers of services potentially at the expense of publicly provided services or as part of a growing local welfare mix (Johansson 2002 & 2005). Seeking to capture changes that might have taken place, municipalities were asked to state whether voluntary organizations have had a service providing role in local welfare provision, whether they played a marginal role or whether they produced more services on the basis of public contracts (see table 4 below). Our findings suggest that voluntary organizations did not produce more welfare based on public contracts and moreover, such a position is emphasized even more in coalition led governments and right wing led governments, than in left wing governments. Such results must, however, be interpreted cautiously, e.g. analysed together with accurate information on the actual amounts municipalities spend (which will be explored in later versions of this paper). Moreover, few municipalities directly reacted against the proposition that voluntary organizations since long an established role in providing services in the municipality, demonstrating what previous research already demonstrated that in particular areas has voluntary organisations always been involved in providing services (e.g. homelessness, see for instance Nordfeldt 2000). Table 3. Status of voluntary organizations as service providers Voluntary organizations has since long an established role in providing welfare services in our municipality Political Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Total per cent (N) majority disagree Right wing Coalition led Left Wing Total 29,4 % 40,0 % 48,4 % 38,8 % 35,3 % 33,3 % 29,0 % 32,5 % 35,3 % 26,7 % 22,6 % 28,8 % 100 % (34) 100 % (15) 100 % (31) 100% (80) Voluntary organizations play a marginal role in providing welfare services in our municipality Political Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Total majority disagree Right wing 57,6 % 12,1 % 30,3 % 100% (33) 17

18 Coalition led Left Wing Total 53,3 % 34,5 % 48,1 % 20,0 % 17,2 % 15,6 % 26,7 % 48,3 % 36,4 % 100% (15) 100% (29) 100% (77) Voluntary organizations produce more welfare services based on municipality contracts Political Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Total majority disagree Right wing Coalition led Left Wing Total 19,4 % 14,3 % 12,9 % 15,8 % 29,0 % 0,0% 32,3 % 25,0 % 51,6 % 85,7 % 54,8 % 59,2 % 100 % (31) 100 % (14) 100 % (31) 100 % (76) Note: All answers have been recoded from completely agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, disagree completely and do not know into above categories. Answers do not know, have been recoded as missing. As mentioned in the text, we cannot find any significant correlations according to political majority and local positions. Last but not least, local municipalities were asked to state their most important ambitions with policies vis-á-vis the voluntary sector. They were confronted with a set of propositions on strengthening local democracy, creating better contacts between citizens and politicians, encouraging user involvement in local social services, maintaining an established relation with local voluntary organizations, improving efficiency in local public services, improving the quality of local public services, activating citizens that have a hard time getting into the labour market, and developing the local social economy, i.e. a mix statements on the advocacy and service provision dimensions of voluntary organizations as well as the input-output legitimacy dimensions of local government voluntary sector relations. The most frequently mentioned aim was to maintain an established relation to local organizations (stated by 39 per cent of all municipalities, N=85); the second most mentioned regarded to increase user involvement in local social services (32 per cent); the third most mentioned was to create better conditions for integration into society (27 per cent). The ambition to improve the quality of local welfare services was mentioned by 24 per cent of the municipalities, also stated as frequently as the ambition to improve the conditions for local associations. 22 per cent of the municipalities stated that they sought to increase a variety of service providers in local welfare production. In most cases, municipalities led by a right wing, left wing or coalition government seem to share views on the abovementioned propositions (at least according to our initial analyses). However, the proposition to increase the variety of welfare services providers, seems to be much more ideologically imbued that the abovementioned. A total of 47 per cent of the right wing led municipalities answering the question maintained that this was a key ambition with local 18

19 policies, whereas only eleven per cent of the left wing led governments and coalition led governments stated that such ambitions steered local policy-making (N=46). The bivariate analysis of correlation between the political majority and whether they agree with the statement turned out to be statistically significant (Pearson Chi Square 0,022 sig. and Cramer s V 0,407). Conclusions The Social democratic welfare model holds a prominent position in international comparative social policy research and comparative non-profit research. This paper has addressed questions regarding a shift in government voluntary sector relations in the Swedish welfare state and whether local political majorities seem to have a significance on how such relations are beings structured at local level. The questions are raised in the backdrop of a series of reform activities in national welfare reform, partly changing the conceptual framework for state-voluntary sector relations and partly also rearranging the institutional framework into which such relations are being formed. Our attempt to seek to investigate the relevance of political majorities and arguably different political traditions with respect of state, market and voluntary involvement in local service provision have resulted in a two main concluding remarks. We find an overarching and common support for not enrolling voluntary sector organizations as service providers to any greater extent. Albeit that voluntary organizations play a role in local service provision, a role that seem to be more than marginal, municipalities seem to prefer to engage voluntary sector organization as a complement to public service provision, rather than as an alternative or as a replacement to such public efforts. It is interesting to notice that in very few cases, municipalities plan to enroll voluntary organizations more as provider of services based on public contracts. Similarities between the municipalities overshadow differences between political majorities, as both left-wing and right-wing local governments more or less explicitly expressed their support for a publicly run welfare services. Throughout our investigation a surprising degree of shared beliefs and positions are being expressed. That is, ideological disputes, contention and expression of different positions on where to draw the line between public and non-public efforts in local welfare production are not directly present in our analysis. What emerges from our analyses is rather the shared view on 19

20 local welfare production as publicly run and administered. Arguably, if, how and to what extent to enroll voluntary sector organizations as service providers then does not seem to be a central issue of ideological disputes or an ideological fault line that is possible to detect according to local political majorities. This might be interpreted as a strong support for the political tradition and legacy of a Social democratic welfare model in which voluntary organizations play a marginal and complementary function to the state in providing welfare services. Such findings might be due to the limited N in the survey, yet also that the differences between the political parties are very limited on these topics. This is not completely accurate as right wing led governments seem to be more keen in exploring the welfare mix or welfare market model in involving voluntary sector organizations as service providers alongside for-profit providers. The ideological fault line in local policies and politics hence seem to lie between public and for-profit involvement. The neglect by left-wing local governments to introduce local freedom of choice systems is an illustration thereof, as well as right wing led local governments ambition to foster the establishment of a variety of service providers. Although national policies and reform activities have resulted in putting the issue of voluntary sector issues on the political agenda, this has not been the case to the same extent in local levels politics where civil servants and representatives of local voluntary organizations were seen as the most important (political) actors. Despite that we find contours of a new policy regime in national discourses and policies, these changes seem to have limited significance in relation to local policies. The Social democratic model might be challenged in national welfare reforms, yet much less in local policy making with some exceptions. In other words: ideology as political majority does not seem to matter, but ideology as political tradition seem to matter when it comes to how government - voluntary sector relations are being structured at local level. References Blennberger Erik (1993) Begrepp och modeller (kap 1). I SOU 1993:82 Frivilligt socialt arbete Kartläggning och kunskapsöversikt. Stockholm: Statens Offentliga Utredningar. Declaration of government, Sep 2006 Declaration of government October