Disorganized welfare mixes: voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in -though an insufficient understanding of -changes in the governance of welfare and related governance regimes, with the latter being conceptualized as systems of multifaceted inter-agency relations and associated modes of coordination. Referring to evidence from France, Britain and Germany, the article explores these changes with an eye on the role of voluntary organizations within these regimes. It challenges widespread typologies of 'welfare mixes' as well as general assumptions about international variation. It argues that, throughout Western Europe, similar governance regimes emerged in the postwar settlement, materializing in an 'organized welfare mix'. It then illustrates how these regimes currently undergo a process of permanent dis-and reorganization, again irrespective of international differences. Longestablished patterns of a system-wide coordination via negotiated public-private partnerships turn into volatile configurations, with a growing albeit varying influence of the market rationale. Moreover, there is an increasing distance between voluntary provider organizations and both the welfare state and civil society, with this entailing precarious, but also more dynamic interrelations. Finally, civic action becomes more fluid, sporadic, dispersed but also more creative in many places. Hence, there is the paradox of the new welfare mixes exhibiting innovative dynamics and systematic organizational failure at the same time, with (more) output heterogeneity as an inevitable consequence.

Institutionally Individualized Volunteering: Towards a Late Modern Re-Construction

“…The classic welfare regime, commonly referred to as the 'mixed economy of welfare' (Powell, 2007), consisted of an institutionalized partnership between the state and intermediary non-profit organizations, which functioned as a structural interface between public policy and civil society. This classic public-private mix was characterized by cooperative relationships and a loyal constituency, and operated clearly separated from the principles of market competition (Bode, 2006;Evers & Laville, 2004). …”

“…Individuals are peremptorily invited and even required to participate (e.g., as part of their study curriculum), and get a more explicit return from their contribution (e.g., study credits, time off from paid work). In addition, as a consequence of new governance regimes in the provision of social welfare, a new kind of 'hybrid organization' is becoming prevalent in which different institutional logics blend into realities that are not only quasi-state and quasi-market, but also quasi-civic (Brandsen et al, 2005;Bode, 2006;Eliasoph, 2009, see further discussion below).…”

Welfare Mix as a Contested Terrain: Political Positions on Government–Non-profit Relations at National and Local Levels in a Social Democratic Welfare State

“…EESC 2012). Although moves towards embedding these organisations in the welfare state on the basis that they can offer innovative, more cost-effective and client-responsive approaches are not new (Ascoli and Ranci 2002;Bode 2006;Henriksen et al 2011), a changing financial climate has offered further incentives to do so. At the same time, sub-national arenas, cities and local municipalities have become increasingly important for public policy regulation and social service delivery (Kazepov 2008(Kazepov , 2010.…”

Toward a New Social Contract? The Participation of Civil Society in Swedish Welfare Policymaking, 1958–2012

“…In response to economic and political changes, CSOs have been increasingly encouraged to step up their work as producers of public welfare in many Western states (Bode 2006;Hogg and Baines 2011). Indeed, given their knowledge legitimacy, and capacity to develop policy solutions to overcome the challenges of Voluntas contemporary welfare states, CSOs have become vital in both policymaking and administration (Evers 2005).…”