Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

Market mechanisms are used in new ways to create progress in the welfare state in Scandinavian countries. Surprisingly, this does not mean that the core welfare goals have been replaced. Scandinavian countries still subscribe to many of the deep-rooted ideals of the welfare model, such as public funding and regulation of core welfare services, decentralisation of governance, equal access for all to high quality services and the adaptation of services to users through active citizenship. However, there is a willingness to innovate in order to better reach these goals and, consequently, large differences between the three Scandinavian countries and between each service area are increasing rapidly. In effect, Scandinavian countries have emerged as a testing ground for solving problems that other countries will encounter.

This chapter focuses on the diverging shares of welfare services provided by the public, for-profit and nonprofit sectors in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. This is a result of historical differences but also of recent policies. Denmark has the largest shares of nonprofit welfare provision. Norway has a mixed model; there is a strong dominance of public welfare provision in some areas combined with a small share of nonprofit actors. Sweden has in 30 years turned completely around from strong public sector dominance and opened up for strong growth in profit-oriented private services. In addition, different modes of regulation are used in different service areas in each country. Data come from national statistical agencies, public policy documents and research on particular services.

This chapter analyses the national legal and policy context for the private provision of publicly financed education and elderly care services in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. We describe the EU Public Procurement Directive and its implementation at the national level in each country, as well as the national policy standards within each country. We found considerable similarity between the national policies of the three countries. However, the interpretation of the Directive seems to vary as do the national frameworks for interaction between the public payer and the private provider. Danish private providers are given more discretion in their service production and its underlying values, especially regarding education. Danish national policies thereby stand out by facilitating diversity in service production.

The purpose of this chapter is to compare and explain similarities and differences in the service provision of nursing homes for elderly people managed by different types of providers (public, for-profit and nonprofit). A common assumption in the literature is that free choice promotes different profiles of nursing homes, reflecting different types of providers. However, the empirical investigation, mainly consisting of interviews in six municipalities in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, demonstrates similarities rather than differences. This is due to the rather hard steering of nursing homes performed by the municipal administration. It is therefore argued that contracting out nursing homes is not mainly a question of free choice. Instead, other factors are relevant to consider, such as benchmarking and equality of welfare provision.

This chapter focuses on the local governing of schools across institutional sectors (public, for-profit and nonprofit) and Scandinavian countries. Local governing in the field is analysed with a specific focus on elements of control, competition and collaboration. The case studies reveal several similarities across countries. One common trend is that the degree of municipal control is lower for private schools than public schools. However, there are also differences, indicating that variation in national legislation is reflected at the local level. Sweden stands out with more focus on equivalent services and less room for distinctiveness in spite of a more market-based approach. Hence, local steering in the field of schools takes place within a complex mix of logics and tools from state, market and civil society.

This chapter explores how the users of services funded by the public sector are affected by the different providers in the welfare mix. The main focus is on differences in terms of active citizenship: the ability for users to take control over their own lives when they are dependent on services. The inferences are based on qualitative studies in 27 institutions in seven municipalities in three Scandinavian countries. This chapter identifies small differences between nursing homes across both institutional sectors and countries. The user experience concerning active citizenship is remarkably consistent. In the school sector, there is more variation, especially between the institutional sectors. The nonprofit schools stand out as enhancing active citizenship. To explain these differences, the chapter shows how administrative freedom and user choice are decisive factors for establishing distinctiveness for public, for-profit and nonprofit institutions.

Does the type of service provider affect user satisfaction? This chapter compares public, for-profit and nonprofit kindergartens, schools and nursing homes in Norway based on recent survey data. Our data allow us to identify respondents with actual experience with specific services and to distinguish between different welfare providers. We found that user satisfaction with private schools and kindergartens is higher than with corresponding public providers. Similarly, for-profit kindergartens enjoy slightly higher levels of user satisfaction than nonprofit providers. In sum, however, differences in user satisfaction are small, and given an overall high level of satisfaction, one should be careful placing too much emphasis on variations between different providers of welfare services in Norway.

In this concluding chapter, we summarise and discuss the main differences between Denmark, Norway and Sweden regarding public regulation and composition of welfare service providers. We also look at the impact of these factors on active citizenship—here defined as choice, empowerment and participation. Finally, we consider welfare policy options regarding user choice and parallel governance systems linked to scenarios of the future.