Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:33:01.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2018

KAREN CHRISTENSEN  and
DORIA PILLING
KAREN CHRISTENSEN
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Bergen, Rosenbergsgt. 39, 5020 Bergen, Norway email: [email protected]
DORIA PILLING
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, United Kingdom email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 43 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Age UK (2012), Care in Crisis 2012, London: Age UK.Google Scholar
Alm Andreassen, T. (2004), Brukermedvirkning, politikk og velferdsstat [User participation politics and welfare state], Oslo: Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet.Google Scholar
Alm Andreassen, T. (2018), ‘From democratic consultation to user-employment: shifting institutional embedding of citizen involvement in health and social care’, Journal of Social Policy, 47, 1, 99–117. doi:10.1017/S0047279417000228Google Scholar
Arnstein, S.R. (1969), ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35, 4, 216–24. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225Google Scholar
Askheim, O.P., Christensen, K., Fluge, S. and Guldvik, I. (2017), ‘User participation in the Norwegian welfare context: an analysis of policy discourses’, Journal of Social Policy, 46, 3, 583–601. doi:10.1017/S0047279416000817Google Scholar
Bacchi, C.L. (2009), Analysing Policy: What's the Problem Represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson Australia.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. and Cotterell, P. (2012), ‘From margin to mainstream’, in Barnes, M. and Cotterell, P. (eds.) Critical Perspectives on User Involvement, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. xv–xxvi.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. and Walker, A. (1996), ‘Consumerism versus empowerment: a principled approach to the involvement of older service users’, Policy and Politics, 24, 4, 375–93.Google Scholar
Borgan, J.-K. (2012), Pleie- og omsorgsstatistikk 1962–2010 [Health-and care statistics 1962-2010], Oslo-Kongsvinger: Statistics Norway, report 10/2012.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. and Syltevik, L.J. (2013), ‘Lønnsarbeid og kvinnearbeid – tilbake til diskusjonen om arbeid’ [Paid work and women's work – back to the discussion about work], Tidsskrift for kjønnsforskning, 37, 2, 157–170.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. and Pilling, D. (2014), ‘Policies of personalisation in Norway and England: On the impact of political context’, Journal of Social Policy, 43, 3, 479–496. doi:10.1017/S0047279414000257Google Scholar
Christensen, K. and Fluge, S. (2016), ‘Brukermedvirkning i norsk eldreomsorgspolitikk – Om utviklingen av retorikken om individuelt medansvar’, Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning, 19, 3, 261–77. doi: 10.18261/issn.2464-3076-2016-03-04Google Scholar
Clarke, J., Newman, J., Smith, N., Vidler, E. and Westmarland, L. (2007), Creating Citizen-Consumers: Changing Publics and Changing Public Services, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Dent, M. and Pahor, M. (2015), ‘Patient involvement in Europe – a comparative framework’, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 29, 5, 546–555. doi: 10.1108/JHOM-05-2015-0078Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2003), Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, London and New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Fotaki, M. (2007), ‘Patient choice in healthcare in England and Sweden: from quasi-market and back to market? A comparative analysis of failure in unlearning’, Public Administration, 85, 4, 1059–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00682.xGoogle Scholar
Fotaki, M. (2011), ‘Towards developing new partnerships in public services: users as consumers, citizens and/or co-producers in health and social care in England and Sweden’, Public Administration, 89, 3, 933–955. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01879.xGoogle Scholar
Glasby, J. (2012), Understanding Health and Social Care, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Greener, I. (2009), ‘Towards a history of choice in UK health policy’, Sociology of Health and Illness; 31, 3, 309–324. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01135.xGoogle Scholar
Greener, I. and Powell, M. (2009), ‘The evolution of choice policies in UK housing, education and health policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 38, 1, 63–81. doi: 10.1017/S0047279408002559Google Scholar
Griffiths, R. (1988), Community Care: Agenda for Action, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Humphries, R. (2011), Social Care Funding and the NHS: An Impending Crisis? London: King's Fund.Google Scholar
Hunter, S. and Ritchie, P. (eds.) (2007), Co-production and Personalisation in Social Care, London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, M. W. and Phillips, L. (2002), Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, London: SageGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, J. (1997), ‘Knights, knaves or pawns? Human behaviour and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 26, 2, 149–169. doi: 10.1017/S0047279497004984Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. (2003), Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy: of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. and Glucksmann, M. (2008), ‘Comparative configurations of care work across Europe’, Sociology, 42, 1, 101–118. doi: 10.1177/0038038507084827Google Scholar
Marshall, T. H. (1950), Citizenship and Social Class, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Means, R., Morbey, H. and Smith, R. (2002), From Community Care to Market Care? The Development of Welfare Services for Older People, Bristol, Policy Press.Google Scholar
Meld.St.nr.29 (2012-2013), Morgendagens omsorg [The future's care], Oslo: Helse-og omsorgsdepartementet.Google Scholar
Newman, J. and Tonkens, E. (eds.) (2011), Participation, Responsibility and Choice: Summoning the Active Citizen in Western European Welfare States, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
NHS, Digital (2015), Personal Social Services: Expenditure and Unit Costs, England, 2014–15 Final Release, Table 2.1, Health and Social Care Information Centre. Available at: http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB19165/pss-exp-eng-14-15-fin-rep.pdf (accessed 09.01.2018).Google Scholar
OECD (2016), Social Expenditure Database. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm (accessed 09.01.2018).Google Scholar
ONS, Office for National Statistics (2015), UK Perspectives. Available at http://visual.ons.gov.uk/tag/uk-perspectives/ (accessed 09.01.2018).Google Scholar
Proposal I (1966) and II (1969), from the Committee on eldercare (Innstilling I og II fra Komitéen for eldreomsorgen, 1964), Oslo: Sosialdepartementet.Google Scholar
Secretaries of State for Health, Social Security, Wales and Scotland (1989), Caring for People. Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Secretaries of State for Social Services, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (1981), Growing Older, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Secretary of State for Health (1998), Modernising Social Services, The Stationery Office. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4169/4169.htm (accessed 09.01.2018).Google Scholar
Secretary of State for Health (2006), Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: A New Direction for Community Services. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272238/6737.pdf (accessed 09.01.2018).Google Scholar
Secretary of State for Health (2012), Caring for Our Future: Reforming Care and Support. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136422/White-Paper-Caring-for-our-future-reforming-care-and-support-PDF-1580K.pdf (accessed 09.01.2018).Google Scholar
St.Meld.nr.59 (1967-68), Om hjelpeordninger for hjemmene [On support arrangements for homes], Oslo: Departementet for familie- og forbrukersaker.Google Scholar
St.Meld.nr.22 (1975-76), Om de eldre i samfunnet [On elders in society], Oslo: Sosial- og helsedepartementet.Google Scholar
St.Meld.nr.50 (1996-97), Handlingsplan for eldreomsorgen. Trygghet – respekt – kvalitet [Action plan for eldercare. Safety – respect – quality]. Oslo: Sosial- og helsedepartementet.Google Scholar
St.Meld.nr.25 (2005-2006), Mestring, muligheter og mening. Framtidas omsorgsutfordringer [Mastering, possibilities and meaning. Future care challenges]. Oslo: Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet.Google Scholar
Vabø, M., Christensen, K., Jacobsen, F.F. and Trætteberg, H.D. (2013), ‘Marketisation in Norwegian eldercare: preconditions, trends and resistance’, in Meagher, G., and Szebehely, M., (eds) Marketisation in Nordic Eldercare:A Research Report on Legislation, Oversight, Extent and Consequences, pp.163–202. Stockholm University: Department of Social Work.Google Scholar