User Participation Policies in Norway and England – the Case of Older People and Social Care

Abstract

User participation has become one of the most important concepts in the social care sector in many European countries, but the literature has mostly paid attention to disabled people or those with mental health problems. This article compares the user participation policies directed at social care for older people in Norway and England. Using a discourse analytical approach, a selection primarily of White papers from the 1960s until today are analysed. The analysis draws on the literature's discourse discussion, including a democratic/rights based discourse (full citizenship), a consumer discourse (consumers’ rights to choose welfare services), a co-production discourse (users and state/local authorities partnerships), and nuances of these discourses. The analysis shows that, while both countries start with variations of a democratic discourse, Norway develops a temporary and weak consumer discourse in a middle phase, then moves to co-production in current times. England, on the other hand, develops a comprehensive consumer discourse but also a surprisingly strong co-production discourse – the idea of a ‘Big Society’ – in early and current times.

Does educational inequality predict exercise of users' choice? Survey evidence from domiciliary care services among elderly in Oslo, Norway

“…One critique is that users should have more influence. Another important critique, however, is that not all users are capable of or have the resources to voice dissatisfaction and that this channel of influence benefits highly educated users with good health and strong networks (Christensen & Pilling, 2019). This has prompted policymakers in Scandinavia to enact new means to increase user influence.…”

“…Due to the universal nature of services and the ambition that all citizens receive services guaranteed by the state, adaption to individual preferences has increasingly become a central complementary goal (Christensen & Pilling, 2019; St. Meld. 10 (2012), p. 50), especially for elderly care (Askheim, Christensen, Fluge, & Guldvik, 2017).…”

Self-Reflexivity as a form of Client Participation: Clients as Citizens, Consumers, Partners or Self-Entrepreneurs

“…While several forms of participation have been identified and discussed extensively in the literature on client participation (e.g. by Aberbach and Christensen, 2005; Askheim et al ., 2017; Christensen and Pilling, 2018; Dent and Pahor, 2015; Fotaki, 2011; Mizrahi et al ., 2009; Nabatchi et al ., 2017; Wistow and Barnes, 1993), self-reflexivity has not been discussed as a distinct form of client participation before. Therefore, I find it important to discuss the implications of self-reflexive participation for clients’ possibility to influence the services they receive.…”

Brukermedvirkning som innflytelse og deltakelse– en studie av omsorgslederes vurderinger

“…Forutsetningen om at den enkelte bruker ønsker å ta ansvar og benytte egne ressurser i tjenesteproduksjonen kan imidlertid problematiseres (Andersen, under utgivelse). En kan tenke seg situasjoner hvor et press for aktivisering og deltakelse ikke bidrar til «empowerment» av brukerne, men heller til «disempowerment» (Fotaki, 2011;Dent & Pahor, 2015;Christensen & Pilling, 2019). Dent og Pahor (2015) trekker fram tre mulige negative konsekvenser av samproduksjon som bidrar til «disempowerment» av brukerne.…”