The creeping disorganization of welfare capitalism or what is the future of Germany's social sector?

Abstract

Drawing on the debate over the destiny of the coordinated market economy versus the expanding liberal market model, this article argues that the analysis of the re-regulation of capitalism must address the embedding infrastructure of the market. Since social support sectors are an important part of this embedding infrastructure the article focuses on organizational change within Germany's social sector as a basis for a new perspective on the future of German welfare capitalism and develops a complimentary understanding of the “social sector economy.” The empirical discussion focuses on organizations providing social support services in a direct or indirect way, on the changing environments in which they operate, and on their strategies for coping with change. The discussion indicates that the German model is slowly but surely evolving toward a “disorganized” welfare capitalism shaped by both formal institutional stickiness and considerable change of the social sector's service provisions. While this change leads to more heterogeneous outcomes in terms of welfare it is also conducive to social innovation.social economy, welfare, Germany, non-profit organizations, models of capitalism, organizational change,

The New Public Management reform of state-funded social service nonprofit organizations and the changing politics of welfare in Hong Kong

“…Welfare associations run by the Catholic Church in particular enjoyed a privileged status and were heavily funded by the state as designated providers of social and medical services under 'the principle of subsidiarity' (Bode, 2003a). Bode (2003c) notes that the marketization reform of NPOs is associated with the loss of privileged status of these welfare associations with the rise of new (non-faith-based) service providers. The granting of state funding is now more contractual and performance based, and Catholic welfare associations are subjected to more competitive pressure.…”

“…Other organizations such as the mutuals and cooperatives are also subjected to various levels of marketization. Nonetheless, a 'national culture' persists that upholds a 'normative legacy' (Bode, 2003c), which is that NGOs are expected to be an active part of civil society 'to challenge government actors and to remind them of their responsibility for social welfare' (Bode, 2003b).…”

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

“…While it holds true that, in the social welfare sector, 'the specificities of governance are strongly rooted in the political culture and configurations of social provision in each country' (Evers et al, 2005: 196), the widely held perception that there has been (and persists) a heavily state-controlled welfare mix in France, a decentralized, so-called corporatist or 'social partner' system in Germany, and a liberal regime in the United Kingdom, with charities deemed both independent and subject to a state-led governance of social welfare provision, reflects only part of the reality. Of course, Germany is a country where shared governance has become most obvious throughout the 20th century (Bode, 2003a). Streeck (1997) has rightly argued that the corporatist organization 5 of the market economy in Germany has been paralleled by a partnershipbased governance of the social welfare sector (see also Salamon and Anheier, 1998b;Zimmer, 1999).…”

Rethinking ‘The Public’ in Troubled Times

“…The modernization of welfare states involves a shift of powers from state to market, but also a shift of responsibility from public to personal domains with the increasing emphasis on informal care and self governance (Newman, 2001). The increasing reliance on market mechanisms, including contract and public/private partnership, produce difficulties of coordination which some have described as 'disorganised governance' (Bode, 2003;Clarke, 2006;Newman, 2006a). The liberal values associated with the traditional public sphere seem ill equipped to address questions of social diversity or respond to contemporary questions of culture, faith and identity (Cooper, 2004;Lewis, 2000;Parekh, 2000a).…”