Public, For-Profit, and Nonprofit Welfare Institutions in Norway: Distinctive Goals and Steering Mechanisms or Hybridity in a Dominant State

Abstract

Nonprofit, public, and for-profit welfare institutions have different operational logics. The distinctiveness of a nonprofit institution is more prominent in some circumstances than in others. This paper is based on case studies conducted in Norwegian municipalities to understand when and why nonprofits operate with distinctive steering mechanisms. Based on the framework of hybrid organizations, I analyze the interaction among institutions in the public sector that have democratic legitimacy through a hierarchical organization, the forprofit sector that seeks efficiency to compete in the market, and the nonprofit sector that has civil society logic. The study revealed how more detached demand-driven oversight of nonprofit schools gives them more room to pursue goals different from those of the public sector institutions, which can be contrasted with the supply-driven oversight of nursing homes that have far less room for steering independent of the municipalities. Surprisingly, the results also suggested that small close-knit communities influence institutions in ways that diverge from the hierarchical steering, and that this happens across the sector split. Moreover, oversight and alternative sources of income contribute to making the organization more hybrid, in the sense that the hierarchical steering is challenged.

Quality Differences of Public, For-Profit and Nonprofit Providers in Scandinavian Welfare? User Satisfaction in Kindergartens

“…In a review of extant studies on home care for the elderly, provision of child care, and the operation of nursing homes, found no evidence of differences between private and public providers in terms of price and quality, dovetailing with most other studies and reviews of various service areas in the Scandinavian context (Hartman 2011;Bogen 2011;Feltenius 2017;Meagher and Szebehely 2013). Only a few studies have distinguished between forprofit and nonprofit actors, and these have mostly been unable to draw robust conclusions about their differences (Gautun et al 2013;Traetteberg 2015;Lindén et al 2017).…”

The Added Value of Civil Society Organizations in the Provision of Welfare State Services

“…Given that public authorities are ultimately responsible for all services provided under the welfare state umbrella, their interest is more in similarity and standardization of services rather than differences and decentralization. Many regulations exist by law to ensure official standards on public health and safety, but standardization is also achieved through terms specified in contracts (Traetteberg, 2015). A homelessness charity, for example, has no choice but to comply with the terms dictated by the contract they have signed with the authorities if they want to continue to operate as a provider of public services.…”

Total Factor Productivity Change of Long-Term Care System in Selected Oecd Countries

“…Since non-profit and for-profit entities can provide institutional longterm care, another dimension opens up when analysing this sector. Namely, the two types of entities mentioned earlier have different steering mechanisms since the for-profit sector seeks efficiency to increase market power while the nonprofit sector follows civil society logic (Traetteberg, 2015). Regardless of whether institutional LTC care is provided by non-profit or for-profit entities, operating in this sector should be characterised by introducing innovations even though, at first, it might seem that this sector does not require constant improvements like those more market-oriented sectors.…”