Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:26:19.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

User participation in the Norwegian Welfare Context: an Analysis of Policy Discourses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2016

OLE PETTER ASKHEIM ,
KAREN CHRISTENSEN ,
SYNNØVE FLUGE  and
INGRID GULDVIK
OLE PETTER ASKHEIM
Affiliation:
Department of Health and Social Work, Lillehammer University College, Box 952, N-2604Lillehammer email: ole-petter.askheim@hil.no
KAREN CHRISTENSEN
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Bergen, Box 7802, N-5020Bergen email: karen.christensen@uib.no
SYNNØVE FLUGE
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Bergen, Box 7802, N-5020Bergen email: synnøve.fluge@uib.no
INGRID GULDVIK
Affiliation:
Department of Health and Social Work, Lillehammer University College, Box 952, N-2604Lillehammer email: ingrid.guldvik@hil.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues that the social construction of user participation policies includes both differences and similarities regarding three user groups: older people, disabled people and people with mental health problems. The article is based on a historical discourse analysis of national documents in Norway. It points at a democracy/social rights discourse, based on the idea of social citizenship, as a common and historically stable discourse for all three user groups and relates this to the specific characteristics of Norwegian welfare policies. A contrasting consumer discourse, stressing users’ consumer role and related to the impact of New Public Management reforms, is only evident in the case of older people and from the 1990s. A co-production/co-partnering discourse, stressing user/professional-partnership, is evident in the current policies directed at older people and those with mental health problems. Both the consumer and co-production discourse remain marginal in the case of disabled people.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 583 - 601
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alford, J. (2009), Engaging Public Sector Clients. From Service-Delivery to Co-production, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Alm Andreassen, T. (2004), Brukermedvirkning, politikk og velferdsstat, Oslo: Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alm Andreassen, T. (2013), ‘En sosial bevegelse blant mennesker med psykiske problemer’, in Norvoll, R. (ed.), Samfunn og psykisk helse. Samfunnsvitenskapelige perspektiver, Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk, pp. 285–312.Google Scholar
Bacchi, C. L. (1999), Women, Policy and Politics. The Construction of Policy Problems, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. and Cotterell, P. (2012), ‘From margin to mainstream’, in Barnes, M. and Cotterell, P., Critical Perspectives on User Involvement, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. xv-xxviGoogle Scholar
Beresford, P. (2012),’The theory and philosophy behind user involvement’, in Beresford, P. and Carr, S. (eds.), Social Care, Service Users and User Involvement, London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 21–36.Google Scholar
Bovaird, T. and Löffler, E. (2012), ’From engagement to co-production’, in Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T. and Verschuere, B., New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-production, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 35–60.Google Scholar
Braye, S. (2000), ‘Participation and involvement in social care: An overview’, in Kemshall, H. and Littlechild, R. (eds.), User Involvement and Participation in Social Care Research Informing Practice, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 9–28.Google Scholar
Carr, S. (2012), ‘Participation, resistance and change’, in Beresford, P. and Carr, S., Social Care, Service Users and User Involvement, London: Research Highlights in Social Work, pp. 37–51.Google Scholar
Clarke, J., Newman, J., Smith, N., Vidler, E. and Westmarland, L. (2007), Creating Citizen-Consumers: Changing Publics and Changing Public Services, Sage: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999), Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1992), Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Froestad, J. and Ravneberg, B. (1991), Fra veldedighet til rettferdighet. Historien om Norges Handikapforbund, Oslo: Norges Handikapforbund.Google Scholar
Harrison, S., Dowswell, G. and Milewa, T. (2002), ‘Guest editorial: public and “user involvement” in the UK National Health Service’, Health and Social Care, 10 (2), pp. 63–66.Google Scholar
Handlingsplan for funksjonshemmede, [Action plan for disabled people] 1990-1993, 1994-1997 and 1998-2001.Google Scholar
Heater, D. (1999), What is Citizenship? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, S. and Ritchie, P. (2007), Co-production and Personalisation in Social Care, London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
Innstilling, [Proposal] I (1966) and II (1969) fra Komitéen for eldreomsorgen (from the Commitee on eldercare), 1964.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, M. W. and Phillips, L. (1999), Diskursanalyse som teori og metode, Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Klausen, K. K. and Ståhlberg, K. (eds.), (1998), New Public Management i Norden, Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
MacGregor, S. (1999), ‘Welfare, neo-Liberalism and new paternalism: Three ways for social policy in late capitalist societies’, Capital and Class, 22: 67, 91–118.Google Scholar
Marshall, T. H. (1992/1950), Citizenship and Social Class, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meld. St. 29 (2012-2013), Morgendagens omsorg.Google Scholar
Meld. St. 26 (2014-2015), Fremtidens helsetjeneste – nærhet og helhet.Google Scholar
Nordby, T. (1994), Korporatisme på norsk, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
NOU 2001: 22, Fra bruker til borger. En strategi for nedbygging av funksjonshemmende barrierer.Google Scholar
NOU 2011:11, Innovasjon i omsorg.Google Scholar
Ot.prp. nr. 65 (2005-2006), Om lov om endringer i psykisk helsevern.Google Scholar
Pestoff, V. (2006), ’Citizens and co-production of welfare services’, Public Management Review, 8: 4, 503–19.Google Scholar
Pestoff, V. (2012), ’Co-production and third sector social services in Europe’, in Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T. and Verschuere, B., New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-production, New York London: Routledge, pp.13–34.Google Scholar
Ramsdal, H. and Skorstad, E.J. (2004), Privatisering fra innsiden. Om sammensmeltingen av offentlig og privat organisering, Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
Realpe, A. and Wallace, L.M. (2010), What is Co-production? London: The Health Foundation.Google Scholar
Regjeringens handlingsplan for funksjonshemmede 1994–1997.Google Scholar
Regjeringens handlingsplan for funksjonshemmede 1998–2001.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, T. (2006), Disability Rights and Wrongs. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sosialdepartementet (1981), Tilbud i nærmiljøet for personer med psykiske lidelser. [Services in the Local Community for People With Mental Illness].Google Scholar
Sosial- og helsedirektoratet (2006), Mål, anbefalinger og tiltak i Opptrappingsplanen for psykisk helse. [Recommandations and Initiatives in the Escalation Plan for Mental Health].Google Scholar
St. meld. nr. 88. (1966-67), Om utviklingen av omsorgen for funksjonshemmede.Google Scholar
St. meld. nr. 59 (1967-68), Om hjelpeordninger for hjemmet.Google Scholar
St. meld. nr. 22 (1975-76), Om de eldre i samfunnet.Google Scholar
St. meld. nr. 23 (1977-78), Funksjonshemmede i samfunnet.Google Scholar
St. meld. nr. 25 (1996-1997), Åpenhet og helhet. Om psykiske lidelser og tjenestetilbudene.Google Scholar
St. meld. nr.50 (1996-97), Handlingsplan for eldreomsorgen. Trygghet – respekt – kvalitet.Google Scholar
St. meld. nr. 40 (2002-2003), Nedbygging av funksjonshemmende barrierer. Strategier, mål og tiltak i politikken for personer med nedsatt funksjonsevne.Google Scholar
St. meld. nr. 25 (2005-2006), Mestring, muligheter og mening. Framtidas omsorgsutfordringer.Google Scholar
St. prp. nr. 63 (1997-98), Om opptrappingsplan for psykisk helse 1999–2006. Endringer i statsbudsjettet for 1998.Google Scholar
Skrentny, J. (2002), The Minority Rights Revolution, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Szebehely, M. and Meager, G. (2013). ‘Four Nordic countries – four responses to the international trend of marketisation’, in Meager, G. and Szebehely, M. (Eds.): Marketisation in Nordic Eldercare. Stockholm: Department of Social Work, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Ulleberg, H. P. (2007), ‘Diskursanalyse: Et mulig bidrag til utdanningshistorisk forskning’. Norsk senter for barneforskning, Barn, 1: 65–80.Google Scholar
Western, M., Baxter, J., Pakulski, J., Tranter, B., Western, J., van Egmond, M., Chesters, J., Hosking, A., O'Flaherty, M. and van Gellecum, Y. (2007), ‘Neoliberalism, inequality and politics: The changing face of Australia’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 42: 3, 401–18.Google Scholar
Young, I. M. (1990), Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar