Institutional logics of service provision: The national and urban governance of activation policies in three European countries

Abstract

Labour market activation policies aimed at those with multiple barriers to employment require inter-agency collaboration between local organizations providing social and employment services. This local collaborative context is shaped by different institutional logics (state, markets, professions and community) that are crucial for policy implementation. Using case studies of nine German, UK and Swedish cities, it is argued that different institutional logics help shape the form and operation of local collaboration between different agencies and actors and thus the concrete support for service users at the local level. Although all three countries are characterized by centralized employment policies, each city shows a prevalence, but not exclusivity, of certain institutional logics over others. These differences, partly reflecting the local context, are likely to lead to local variations in understandings of solidarity, policy implementation, inter-agency collaboration and networks of actors and national–local tensions. The paper suggests that an institutional logics approach provides a useful framework for helping to understand local variations and potential national–local policy conflicts.

Collaborative innovation and activation in urban labour markets

“…As a result, rather than seeking to impose a pre-ordained programme design from the top down, The Fund’s policy and funding managers embarked on an extensive programme of stakeholder engagement (including with single parents) prior to taking any decisions on the governance, resourcing or content of the programme. Drawing on insights from these discussions, The Fund and its partners in both cities agreed to eschew the payment-by-results contracting that has driven the standardisation of activation in the UK and other liberal welfare states (Fuertes et al, 2020). Instead, it was agreed that partnerships, co-led by local government or their partners and third sector organisations, would gradually bring together – and agree a modus operandi with – relevant local stakeholders.…”

“…local stakeholders (including the voluntary sector) in a more locally variegated approach’ to activation (Orton and Green, 2019: 8). That said, we again acknowledge that multiple institutional factors and varying access to resources will shape and limit the possibilities of collaboration within urban areas (Fuertes et al, 2020) and that labour demand deficiency and public service gaps may limit the reach of innovative services in different cities. The fact that we have identified specific opportunities associated with these urban contexts also raises concerns (and a question for future research) as to how collaborative innovation can be supported in more dispersed and rural communities (Lindberg et al, 2020).…”

“…Previous studies in the same areas have noted similar tensions between UK Government interventions that seek to increase welfare conditionality; and the 'income maximisation' work of local actors determined to ensure that vulnerable groups claim the benefits to which they are entitled (Bennett, 2016). Thus, while such income maximisation work marks the sort of break with the past/divergence from dominant policy priorities that is seen as a key outcome of collaborative innovation, there are clearly challenges where such fundamentally differing logics underly the approaches of local/urban and national government stakeholders in the MLG of activation (Fuertes et al, 2020). These same fundamental differences limited opportunities for collaborative and information-sharing between local MIW partnerships and Work Programme providers, undercutting any scope to develop complementary services.…”

“…The activation policy agenda pursued by successive governments since the mid-1990s has seen the DWP contract out national programmes to large, mainly for-profit ‘prime contractor’ organisations. Policymakers have claimed that payment-by-results contracts incentivise prime contractors to design innovative and personalised provision (Fuertes et al, 2020). At the time of our research, the DWP used this model to fund all main activation programmes targeting unemployed groups, including single parents (with the national ‘Work Programme’ – since re-branded as the ‘Health and Work Programme’ – absorbing most resources).…”

“…Such partnerships co-ordinate non-mandatory activation normally funded by the devolved Scottish Government and local government, with many services delivered by further education colleges or the third sector. Such local services have been commended as providing tailored provision for vulnerable jobseekers, filling the gaps left by standardised work-first activation; but there is also a sense of a disconnected multi-level governance (MLG) whereby there is limited co-ordination across local/Scotland-level and UK-level policy and programme design (Fuertes et al, 2020).…”