Innovations in Local Domiciliary Long-Term Care: From Libertarian Criticism to Normalisation

Abstract

This article assesses how social innovations in the field of local domiciliary long-term care are shaped and implemented. It proposes a mapping of innovations in terms of two structuring discourses that inform welfare state reforms: a libertarian and a neoliberal discourse. It then provides an analysis of the concrete trajectories of three local innovations for elderly people in Hamburg (Germany), Edinburgh (Scotland) and Geneva (Switzerland). Theoretically, social innovation is considered as a discursive process of public problem redefinition and institutionalisation. New coalitions of new actors are formed along this double process, and these transform the original discourse of innovation. The comparative analysis of the three processes of institutionalisation of local innovation shows that, in the context of local policy making, social innovations inspired by a libertarian critique of the welfare state undergo differentiated processes of normalisation.

Social services in post-industrial Europe: an incomplete success story and its tragic moments

“…Social intervention is expected to accompany key episodes in each citizen's life course, particularly so during early childhood and old age; it also occurs with critical situations in that life course such as endangered childhood, homelessness, disability, or chronic frailty. As some services address ever greater sections of the population, one can even state that there is a trans-European tendency towards their 'normalisation' (Giraud et al, 2014, for the case of home care). Thus, although such interventions are subject to distinctive legal frameworks, professions and organisations, social services have become -more or less -institutionalised throughout Europe.…”

“…Regarding support to older people, the numbers of both facilities and users served have increased as well. Efforts were concentrated on residential care during the post-war decades whereas domiciliary provision has become more dynamic after 1980 (Bahle, 2008;Da Roit and Sabatinelli, 2013;Giraud et al, 2014). Again, this pattern is prominent in Eastern Europe, too (Österle, 2011;CAP Kováčová et al, 2014;Juska and Ciciurkaite, 2015;Kubalčíková and Havlíková, 2016).…”

How to deal with an "essentially contested concept" on the field? Sampling social innovations through the Delphi method

“…Openness might also refer to the increased interest in the discursive analysis of social innovation (Evers & Brandsen, 2016;Fougère, Segercrantz, & Seeck, 2017;Giraud et al, 2014;Montgomery, 2016;Wittmayer et al, 2015). On the one hand, many authors understand the "weak" approach of social innovation as a neoliberal critique of the traditional welfare state.…”

“…On the one hand, many authors understand the "weak" approach of social innovation as a neoliberal critique of the traditional welfare state. On the other hand, and probably more surprisingly, alternatives to the "weak" approach are described as a (Leftwing) libertarian critique (Giraud et al, 2014). Libertarian social innovations pursue governance without government; diversity in service provision; bottom-up and reflexive approaches to quality standards; and democratic modes of participation (Giraud et al 2014).…”

“…On the other hand, and probably more surprisingly, alternatives to the "weak" approach are described as a (Leftwing) libertarian critique (Giraud et al, 2014). Libertarian social innovations pursue governance without government; diversity in service provision; bottom-up and reflexive approaches to quality standards; and democratic modes of participation (Giraud et al 2014). Some questions arise when the criterion of openness is translated to the domiciliary eldercare field: Do (Left-wing) libertarian and neoliberal critiques exhaust possibilities for critical approaches of domiciliary eldercare?…”