Suchergebnisse

Summary The report focuses on solidarity between adult generations, more specifically what responsibility adult children have towards older parents, how responsibilities should be divided between the family and the welfare state, and how the two impact on each other. Data was collected through the European comparative study OASIS, Old age and autonomy - the role of services systems and intergenerational family solidarity. The project was financed through the EU fifth framework program, and carried out in Norway, England, Germany, Spain, and Israel. Individual level data were collected via parallel surveys (interviews) among the urban populations aged 25 and over in each of the five participating countries. National samples counted about 1 200, around 6 100 in total. The older participants (aged 75+) were oversampled to represent around 1/3 of the samples.The project was motivated by the assumed threat to family solidarity in late modern and individualist society (Chapter 1). Of particular interest is the relationship between the family and the welfare state. What is a reasonable and sustainable balance? These questions need be studied in context, hence a comparative approach was seen as appropriate. The countries were therefore selected to represent different family cultures and welfare state regimes. They are located along a north-south axis, which according to Reher (1998) divides European families into a southern more collectivist form, and a northern more individualist type. The five countries also represent different welfare state regimes; the social democratic (Norway), the liberal (England, and the conservative-corporatist (Germany), to stay within the Esping-Andersen typology (1990). Spain has as yet a less mature welfare state, while the fifth country, Israel, is a mixed model.The macro conditions of the countries are assumed to be reflected on the invidual and interpersonal (family) levels. Preferences and practices are assumed to be more or less congruent with the already established traditions, and to be more conform for the older than for the younger generation. The present balance is assumed to be fluid and under pressure from demographic and social change in all countries, but more so in countries that are later in these developments and are now confronted with more rapid changes. These assumptions are in OASIS explored in the strength and character of intergenerational family solidarity, and in the ideals and realities of the family-welfare state interaction.Welfare states differ in the responsibility they ascribe to families (Chapter 2). Some put the family in a dominant position, others assume that the welfare state should protect against dependency upon the family. The OASIS-countries are differently located along this dimension, hence they represent different opportunity structures for family life and elder care. They are facing similar challenges, but are inclined towards different solutions. Germany and Spain tend to favor familistic solutions, and give the state a subsidiary (Germany) or even a residual (Spain) role. They have legal obligations for adult children towards older parents and low levels of services on areas that are by tradition a family responsibility, like long-term care. England and Norway have no legal obligations between generations and higher levels of services on traditional family areas, in particular in Norway. Israel is a mixed case, with legal obligations as in Spain and Germany, but also with rather generous service levels.Are these patterns reflected in public opinion and personal preferences? Do people support the established policies, or do they push for change? Of interest is also to investigate consensus and contrasts in attitudes within the five countries, for example between women and men, the younger and the older. Knowledge about actual help provision is important, but so also is knowledge about norms and attitudes because people tend to act accordingly if opportunity allows it.The intergenerational solidarity model (Bengtson & Roberts 1991) is employed as a research instrument and measures solidarity along six dimensions - structural, associational, consensual, affectional, functional, and normative solidarity. Ambivalence has more recently been introduced as an alternative perspective (LöƒÂ¼scher & Pillemer 1998). Intergenerational relations are seen as inherently ambivalent and characterised by mixed feelings and contradicting expectations that family members need to cope with. These adaptive changes may have been misinterpreted as a breakdown of family solidarity in stead of a change in how solidarity is expressed.Affectional solidarity (Chapter 3) is considerable. Both parties say they feel very close, but parents more so than children. Conflict levels are low as seen from both sides of the relationships, while both parties - and in particular the children - allow a difference of opinion without this being seen as a threat to the relationship. The presumably tighter spanish family shows primarily in structural and associational solidarity. Generations live closer and have more often contact in Spain compared to the more northern countries. This is mainly explained by the higher co-residence rates in Spain, but shared living is often enforced more than chosen, and is then more likely an indicator of (lack of) opportunity than of solidarity.Exchange of help and support (functional solidarity) is substantial in all five countries, and not less so in the northern family (Chapter 3). Exchanges are integral parts of daily life of nearly any family, but roles and resources change over the life course. Older people tend to be in the receiving end, but act also as providers of support. Starting out from the adult child perspective, the findings show that most adult children have provided one or several types of support to older parents during the last year. Emotional support is the most frequent form of support, followed by instrumental help. Only few children provide personal care to older parents, probably because few parents are this frail, and if so, they may already have moved to an institution. Adult children are as a general rule the net providers in the exchange relationship to older parents; they give more than they receive. Older parents provide first of all emotional support to adult children, and in some countries (Norway, Germany, Israel) also money. Instrumental help is flowing upwards in the family line, financial support flow downwards if and when pension levels allow it.Normative solidarity (Chapter 4) is indicated by the support for filial obligation norms; the extent to which adult children are obligated to help their older parents. The majority support such norms in all five countries, but more so in Spain and Israel than in Norway, England, and Germany. This trend is consistent with Rehers (1998) suggestion that the southern family are tighter than the northern. The main impression is, however, that normative solidarity is substantial also in northern countries, even in a universalist welfare state like Norway. This is even more so as the samples were drawn from large cities, and do not include smaller towns and rural areas which may be assumed to be even more familistic. Hence, neither urbanisation nor welfare state expansion seem to have eroded filial obligations.The focus in Chapter 5 is on what people find is a reasonable balance of responsibilities between the family and the welfare state, and what their personal preferences are. Public opinion is found to vary considerably between the countries. The welfare state is seen as the main responsible in Norway and by a (smaller) majority also in Israel. A more even split is favoured in the other three countries. A common trend is that the majority in all five countries favours some form of complementarity between the family and the welfare state, but the complementarity takes different forms. The welfare state is assumed to have the major responsibility in Norway and Israel with the family in a supplementary role. Itö''s the other way around in Germany and Spain, with England in an intermediate position. Attitudes are more or less congruent with the actual policies, but public opinion leans more heavily towards a welfare state responsibility than is presently implemented. The contrast between ideals and realities is greater in low-service countries, implying a greater tension between policy and opinion in these countries.Gender differences are small; hence the female dominance in actual care provision is more likely imposed upon them, not chosen. Age differences are also modest. Older people are not more traditional (familialistic) than are the younger. Spain is an exception, while Norway has high degree of consensus in these matters across gender and age. The older generation is in fact more inclined to push responsibilities on the welfare state than are the younger. Personal preferences lean even more towards services than do the more general attitudes. The great majority of Norwegians state a preference for services over family care if they should come to need help in old age. A corresponding majority would prefer institutional care over living with a child if they could no longer live by themselves. Preferences are more moderately biased towards the welfare state in three of the other four countries. Spain stands out with a majority in favour of family care, but only among the older generation.Chapter 6 analyses the actual distribution of help to elders in need. The family and the organised services are the dominant sources of help, but in different combinations. Families are dominant on all leves of needs in Spain, while services - and then mainly public services - are the major source of help among the most needy in Norway. The total help rate (from all sources) is higher in a high-service country like Norway than in a family dominated system like Spain, while the volume of family care is only moderately lower in Norway, indicating that service systems and families tend to supplement rather than substitute each other. There is little or no support in these trends for the idea that older people are diserted by their families and pushed over on services as a secondary option. Family solidarity need not be threatened by alternative or complementary services, and each party may have qualities that are not easily replaced by the other. Hence complementarity is more likely than substitution.Considering that affection and exchange levels are rather substantial in five otherwise different countries, they indicate that solidarity is general and considerable although not universal. While country differences are moderate in the more general features of solidarity, they are far larger in the more concrete attitudes about how policies and services should be organised. If this is a valid observation, then intergenerational family solidarity may have a rather stable and general character, but find different expressions in practice when circumstances and conditions change. This suggestion indicates a need to clarify what should indeed be ment by solidarity. We have therefore in the concluding Chapter 7 conducted a series of factor analysis in order to explore the solidarity concept and model. The findings give conditional support to a simplified variant of the solidarity model. A general finding is a four factor solution. Affection comes out first and includes consensus. Conflict comes out next as a distinct factor. Third is a joint factor for structural and associational solidarity, while giving and receiving support (functional solidarity) is the fourth factor. Normative solidarity is in most cases not included in any of these factors, and is apparently a distinct aspect of intergenerational relationships that may be combined with different ways of relating to each other.Family life has been, and to some extent still is, structured by material necessities and enforced duties which makes it difficult to separate the truly solidary motivations from external pressures. These are among the reasons why it is difficult to compare families across time and cultures. Solidarity may be easier to observe and separate from external pressures today than in earlier times, but the mechanisms and processes that have produced the solidary patterns may have become more complex. ; Rapporten belyser solidaritet mellom familiegenerasjoner, nærmere bestemt hvilket ansvar voksne barn har for eldre foreldre, hvordan ansvarsdelingen mellom familien og velferdsstaten er, og hvordan den etter befolkningens syn bør være. Ligger det en trussel mot familiesolidaritet i framveksten av velferdsstaten og økt individualisering? Rapporten tar også opp hvordan familien og velferdsstaten påvirker hverandre, og hva vi i mer teoretisk forstand skal forstå med familiesolidaritet. Dataene ble samlet inn gjennom det europeisk komparative prosjektet OASIS, Old age and autonomy - the role of services systems and intergenerational family solidarity. Fem land med ulik familiekultur og velferdspolitikk deltok i studien, Norge, England, Tyskland, Spania og Israel. Dette gir muligheter for å studere forholdet mellom familie, velferdsstat og aldring under ulike betingelser. Et tilfeldig utvalg av storbybefolkningen i alderen 25 år og over ble intervjuet i hvert land, ca. 1 200 i hvert land, til sammen ca. 6 000.

In 2004, the Child Welfare Reform (CWR) was introduced in Norway. One of the most important goals of the reform was to strengthen State level authority in public child welfare and establish equal child welfare services across the country. The aim of this article is to study how this new reform affected the work of municipal child welfare professionals and led to the development of a regional project called New Child Welfare (NCW). Based on qualitative interviews with central actors in NCW, regarding the interaction between state and local child welfare professionals, the article shows how professionals within local child welfare reacted on the CWR. The NCW was established as a consequence of the professionals' reaction on state governance and represent a new type of network. Inspired by Michel Foucaults' concepts of governmentality and self-work, the article focuses on the development of the NCW as a result of child welfare workers' confrontation with state governance and their fight for innovative solutions, knowing that the reform had direct impact on vulnerable children, youths, and their families. The local and collective self-work in NCW is an expression of a new form of productive power based on equality and cooperation, as well as a particular form of dependency between municipal and state levels of governance. The article highlights the importance of studying how reforms introduced by the state actually influence local child welfare work, policy, and professionalism within municipal child welfare. ; Published version

Omsorg er mer enn et begrep for filosofer. I samfunnsvitenskapen har det stått sentralt i analyser av omsorgs- og pleieyrkene, men også i mye kjønns- og velferdsstatsforskning. I den første artikkelen i dette nummeret om omsorg, peker Arnlaug Leira og Chiara Saraceno på at analysen av omsorg, med sitt spenn av aktører, relasjoner og kontekster, ikke er en lineær eller additiv prosess. Snarere er det en reflekterende prosess som hele tiden er skiftende både når det gjelder empirisk fokus, perspektiver og analysenivåer. Utvalget av artikler i dette nummeret av Sosiologi i dag viser dette mangfoldet innenfor omsorgsforskningen. Bidragene spenner fra Leira og Saracenos forsøk på å nettopp vise omsorgsforskningsfeltets mangfold de siste 30 årene, via Nicole Hennums analyse av hvordan rådende diskurser rundt barneomsorg slår inn i likestillingsdiskursen på kompliserte og delvis uheldige måter, til henholdsvis Juritzen/Heggen og Højlunds forsøk på å etablere ulike analyseapparat som kan åpne for refleksjon rundt hvordan omsorgstrengende eldre myndiggjøres og ansvarliggjøres innenfor rammen av den nyliberale velferdsstaten. Et viktig bidrag til å analysere dette mangfoldige feltet, var Kari Wærness artikkel "On the rationality of caring" (1984/1992) hvor hun utviklet begrepet om omsorgsrasjonalitet. Denne forskningen bidro også til generelle debatter i norsk samfunnsvitenskap. Hun ble blant annet kritisert av Rune Slagstad for sin bruk av rasjonalitetsbegrepet. Slagstad mente Wærness begrenset sin analyse av omsorgsrasjonalitet fordi hun i sin rasjonalitetsutlegging la til grunn dikotomien etter det parsonianske begrepsparet instrumentell/ekspressiv, eller rasjonalitet/emosjonalitet. Hun overså derfor nyere forskningsdiskusjoner om ulike rasjonalitetsformer, slike som for eksempel instrumentell-, kommunikativ-, normativ- og strategisk rasjonalitet (Slagstad 1995: 37-38). Diskusjonen som fulgte aktualiserte blant annet spørsmål om implikasjonene av at Wærness hadde én dikotomi, og involverte problemer knyttet til det vanskelige forholdet mellom empirisk forpliktelse og teoretisk stringens, begrepets potensielle (kvinne) kjønnethet, og dets relasjon til vitenskapelig rasjonalitet. Når Wærness-´ begrep om omsorgsrasjonalitet likevel er blitt betegnet som banebrytende (se for eksempel Leira 1992), har vært hyppig sitert og fortsatt blir det, er dette med god grunn. Hun satte med sin utarbeiding av begrepet ord på sider ved menneskelig praksis og samhandling i en avhengighetsrelasjon som ikke mange hadde snakket om tidligere. Utgangspunktet for analysen er omsorgsarbeidet der den som mottar omsorg er avhengig av den som gir omsorg. Begrepet er blant annet inspirert av Arlie Russell Hochschilds begrep om "the sentient actor", og har som grunnlag for tenkning om handling den aktive blandingen av følelser/medfølelse og rasjonalitet hos omsorgsutøveren. Når Wærness problematiserer omsorgsrasjonaliteten i forhold til pleiearbeidets organisatoriske/byråkratiske rammebetingelser viser hun både nødvendigheten av at omsorgsarbeideren har en omsorgsrasjonell orienterting, samtidig som hun advarer mot at denne orienteringen i økende grad blir forsøkt fortrengt. Omsorg i spenningsfeltet mellom arbeid og kjærlighetI artikkelen "Care: Actors, relationships, contexts" viser Leira og Saraceno hvilke utfordringer omsorgsforskningen har stått overfor og fortsatt står i. Med omsorg som empirisk og teoretisk fokus, som benevner for deler av innholdet i både private og offentlige relasjoner, som analytisk omdreiningspunkt for forholdet mellom stat, marked, familie, og som redskap for systematisk tenkning om betydningen av kvinners betalte og ubetalte arbeid, viser de hvordan begrepet har åpnet for analyser på underteoretiserte felt som 'sosial reproduksjon' og 'husarbeid'. Dermed har en kunnet dekonstruere termer som 'medborgerskap' og 'velferdsstat' blant annet ved å vise hvordan kjønn gjør seg gjeldende. Til tross for flere tiår med forskning og større likhet mellom kjønnene, står en fortsatt tilbake med substansielle teoretiske (og empiriske) utfordringer. De mener at dersom omsorgsforskningen ikke strekker seg mot generell sosialteoretisk analyse som problematiserer individuelle rettigheter og muligheter, samtidig som den validerer det faktum at det fortsatt er slik at kvinner bærer de største omsorgsbyrdene, så risikerer vi en tilbakevending til utgangspunktet. Dvs. der omsorg blir forstått innenfor rammen av kjærlighet og hvor en mister både arbeids- og kjønnsdimensjonen av syne. Nicole Hennums utgangspunkt er barneomsorg og likestilling. Hennes argument er at diskursene rundt barneomsorgen, eller det hun kaller barneprosjektet; den gode barndom, det gode moderskap og rolleforventningene til mor og far, slår inn i likestillingsdiskursen på kompliserte og delvis uheldige måter. Hun henter sin empiri fra forskning på barn og ungdom i institusjoner, hvor de kulturelle forventningene om det riktige og normale foreldreskapet trer fram når behandlere konfronteres med situasjoner der noe har gått galt. Gjennom disse situasjonene viser hun for eksempel hvordan forestillinger om den empatiske og nærende mor og den autoritative far fortsatt er aktive forventninger. Aktiviseringen av den omsorgstrengende innen den nyliberale velferdsstatenHvordan står det så til med omsorgsutøvelsens vilkår innen den moderne nyliberale, markeds- og managementpregede velferdsstaten? Dette er et spørsmål de to siste artiklene på hvert sitt vis forsøker å kaste lys over. Analyser av det nyliberale samfunnet viser hvilke dilemmaer og utfordringer som oppstår innen omsorgsfeltet når omsorgsrasjonaliteten underordnes mer instrumentelle rasjonalitetsformer (Vike et al, 2004; Nafstad et al. 2004). Ved at for eksempel budsjettansvar og lønnsomhetskrav blir gjort gjeldende for nivået hvor omsorgsrasjonaliteten i utgangspunktet burde råde, oppstår det dilemmaer som ofte skaper mer avmakt enn myndiggjøring av velferdsstatens omsorgsarbeidere og mottakere for den saks skyld. Både Juritzen/ Heggen og Højlunds prosjekter er å ta denne analysen et skritt videre, gjennom å forsøke å etablere et analyseapparat som er i stand til å synliggjøre mulighetene for en reell myndiggjøring av både omsorgsutøvere og -mottakere innenfor den nyliberale velferdsstaten. Juritzen og Heggen peker på hvordan maktutredningens diagnose av velferdsstatens førstelinjetjenere som avmektiggjort av et system som ikke klarer å håndtere dilemmaer mellom omsorg og økonomi, bidrar til å tildekke mikromaktrelasjonene som utspiller seg mellom pleier og pleietrengende. Ved hjelp av et av Focaults maktbegrep forsøker de å utvikle et analyseapparat som kan trenge gjennom og utforske den gjensidige maktutfoldelsen som skjer blant pleiere og pleietrengende. Højlund er i sin artikkel opptatt av hvordan vi inkluderes som brukere av den moderne velferdsstatens tjenester. Artikkelen analyserer adgangspremissene i eldreomsorgen i Danmark, med sikte på å demonstrere den intrikate dialektikken mellom identitetsskaping, kommunikasjonsformer og beslutningspremisser som gjør seg gjeldende når eldre borgere blir en del av omsorgsapparatet. Den moderne velferdsstatens blanding av fagstyrt ekspertvelde og brukernes rett og plikt til både å ha myndighet, men også ansvar for sin egen velferd som pleietrengende, blir avdekket ved hjelp av en systemteoretisk analyse av tre ulike møteplasser mellom velferdsstatens representanter og den fremtidige pleietrengende. Artikkelen gir med andre ord et bilde av den profesjonelle omsorgsutøvelsens vilkår i den nyliberale nordiske velferdsstaten. Her får borgeren, forbruker av omsorg, en rolle som ikke er passiv og gitt, men som aktivt defineres gjennom de hybride inklusjonsmekanismene som innlemmer den enkelte omsorgsmottaker i det profesjonelle omsorgsapparat. Gjennom en Luhman-basert systemteoretisk analyse av det nye danske systemet for inklusjon av eldre i velferdsstatens tjenester viser Højlund hvordan både velferdsstatens førstelinjetjenere og de eldre har rom for å utforme sine respektive roller. Men han peker også på baksiden av disse myndiggjørende inklusjonsmekanismene, hvor det i større grad enn tidligere forventes av omsorgsmottakeren å ta ansvar for sitt eget pleiebehov, dels ved å definere det og dels ved å håndtere det på egenhånd. Til slutt i dette nummeret har vi med to bokmeldinger. Gro Ween har anmeldt Knut Odners frodige bok om Thorstein Veblens liv og virke, og Ragnhild Skogheim har lest Kirsten Simonsens bok om byen med kritisk blikk.God lesning! LitteraturLeira; Arnlaug (1992) Welfare state and working mothers. Cambridge; Cambridge University pressNafstad, Hilde (red) (2004) Det omsorgsfulle mennesket. Oslo: Gyldendal akademiskSlagstad, Rune (1995) "Feminisme som normative teori" Arbeidsnotat nr. 4. Senter for kvinneforskning. Universitetet i Oslo.Vike, Halvard, m/fl (2002) Maktens samvittighet. Om politikk, styring og dilemmaer I velferdsstaten. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Wærness, Kari (1992/1984) "On the rationality of caring". I: Anne Showstack Sasson (red.): Woman and the state. London: Routledge.

The focus of this special issue is some of the main tacit policies and practices in the Norwegian welfare state. By looking at what is tacit, mute, unarticulated and neglected we will contribute to raising and presenting knowledge about the social and ethical question of dignity in welfare. This introductory article will first give a short overview of the historical background of the Norwegian welfare state and some of its current features. This will be followed by our positioning of the Norwegian welfare state as situated within complex practices, political discourses and dimensions that might be characterised as tacit, implicit or unarticulated. The article aims to discuss the concept of dignity in welfare services, at the individual and structural level, by asking 'what kind of practices and structural conditions preserve dignity and where might dignity be violated, ignored or left out?'The various articles in this special issue of the International Practice Development Journal illuminate what can be said and what is mute and tacit in different ways, and consider a range of practice-based responses. By revealing tacit dimensions in the Norwegian welfare this issue offers important insight into practices and discourses where dignity is at stake. It is a requirement of us all that we revisit dignity and its location and representation in our health systems to ensure it is not left behind as the state and other systems within it evolve. ; publishedVersion

The commentary addresses the scope for synergy between climate change policy and social policy in the European Union from a 'sustainable welfare' perspective. The emerging sustainable welfare approach is oriented at the satisfaction of human needs within ecological limits, in an intergenerational and global perspective. While the overall goals of EU climate policy and EU welfare policies largely reflect this orientation, there are significant differences in policy priorities. A 'policy auditing' approach towards sustainable welfare defines critical thresholds for matter and energy throughput to identify how much room there is for economic and societal development. However, the EU refrains from prioritizing environmental over other, especially economic, goals and displays a remarkable degree of optimism in relation to the extent to which one can make these different policy goals compatible. ; acceptedVersion

Diese Dissertation verfolgt zwei Ziele: Zum einen sollen zentrale Eigenschaften des Begriffsapparates der sozialwissenschaftlichen Wohlfahrtsstaatsforschung analysiert werden. Die Analysemethode ist dabei eine systemtheoretische Methode. Zum anderen sollen die Analyseresultate mit Hilfe und im Lichte der Systemtheorie Niklas Luhmann's reformuliert werden. In beiden Fällen steht die Frage nach der Konstruktion und dem Verhältnis von Wohlfahrtsstaat und Gesellschaft im Zentrum. In der Literatur wird gemeinhin die sozialwissenschaftliche Wohlfahrtsstaatsforschung als ein unübersichtliches und resonanzfreudiges interdisziplinäres Forschungsgebiet beschrieben. Als eigenes Forschungsobjekt betrachtet beschreiben und interpretieren Sozialwissenschaftler jedoch allenfalls die unterschiedlichen theoretischen Strömungen. Demgegenüber widmet sich diese Arbeit der kommunikationstheoretischen Analyse dieses Forschungsgebietes. Im Zentrum steht hierbei die Analyse der kommunikativen Möglichkeitsbedingungen (Selbstreferenz). Die Forschungshypothese lautet, dass diese Möglichkeitsbedingungen nicht nur auf gesellschaftstheoretischen Verkürzungen aufbauen, sondern auch kommunikative Hybridität aufweisen. Während mit ersterem Sachverhalt die Tatsache beschrieben wird, dass der Begriffsapparat asymmetrisch konstruiert ist, so beschreibt kommunikative Hybridität den Umstand, dass sich dieses Forschungsgebiet zu mehreren Systemreferenzen verhält. Im Gesamtergebnis beeinflusst dies stark die Kommunikationsform. Die Analyse der sozialwissenschaftlichen Wohlfahrtsstaatsforschung nutzt das gesamte Spektrum systemtheoretischer Analysemethoden aus: Form-, Medien-, Semantik-, System- und Kopplungsanalyse. Diese Analysestrategien ermöglichen eine kommunikations- und differenzierungstheoretische Beschreibung der sozialwissenschaftlichen Wohlfahrts-staatsforschung. Die Ergebnisse bestätigen die Eingangshypothese. Neben der Asymmetrie im Begriffsapparat kann neben der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikationsform ein reflexionstheoretisches Verhältnis zu genuin politischer Semantik nachgewiesen werden. Im zweiten Teil der Arbeit wird der analysierten Perspektive eine gesellschaftstheoretische Perspektive auf Wohlfahrtsstaat und Gesellschaft entgegengestellt. Neben der Wohlfahrtsstaatlichkeit der Gesellschaft bietet diese Perspektive auch Raum und Platz für die Beschreibung der Gesellschaftlichkeit des Wohlfahrtsstaates. Mit Hilfe der Theorie funktionaler Differenzierung können so die zum Teil widersprüchlichen/paradoxen Aspekte der Begriffsapparatur der sozialwissenschaftlichen Wohlfahrtsstaatsforschung integriert werden. ; Denne avhandlingen har to mål. For det første, skal sentrale trekk ved begrepsapparatet til den samfunnsvitenskapelige velferdsstatsforskning analyseres. Analysemetoden er en systemteoretisk metode. For det andre skal funnene reformuleres ved hjelp og i lys av systemteorien slik den ble utarbeidet av den tyske sosiologen Niklas Luhmann. Både i analysen og reformuleringen står måten henholdsvis velferdsstaten og samfunnet blir konstruert på så vel som selve forholdet mellom velferdsstat og samfunn sentralt. I litteraturen beskrives samfunnsvitenskapelig velferdsstatsforskning både som en uoversiktlig og appellerende interdisiplinær forskningsvirksomhet. Som et eget forskningsobjekt beskriver og tolker samfunnsvitere i beste fall de forskjellige teoretiske strømninger, hva som derimot kjennetegner hele denne forskningsvirksomhet blir ikke tatt opp i litteraturen. Forskningsspørsmålet mitt er på denne bakgrunnen rettet mot en nøyere analyse av de kommunikative mulighetsbetingelsene som utgjør denne forskningsvirksomhetens selvreferanse. Hypotesen er at disse mulighetsbetingelsene kjennetegnes ved samfunnsteoretiske forkortelser så vel som kommunikativ hybriditet. Det vil si at det i forskningsfeltet opereres med et asymmetrisk begrepsapparat og at forskningsvirksomheten forholder seg til flere systemreferanser, noe som påvirker kommunikasjonsformen. Analysen utnytter hele det systemteoretiske analysespekteret: Form-, medie-, semantikk- og system/koblingsanalyser. Disse analysestrategiene gjør det mulig å få til en kommunikasjons- og differensieringsteoretisk beskrivelse av samfunnsvitenskapelig velferdsstatsforskning. Analyseresultatene bekrefter hypotesen. Det er et asymmetrisk begrepsapparat denne forskningsvirksomheten opererer med og det er i tillegg til en vitenskapelig kommunikasjonsform et refleksjonsteoretisk forhold til det politiske systemets semantikk. Til forskjell fra en sånn kommunikasjonsform bys det i andre omgang på et samfunnsteoretisk perspektiv på velferdsstaten og samfunnet idet det reformuleres noen sentrale funn av analysen. Hensikten med det er å få frem et perspektiv der det pekes på samfunnets velferdsstatlighet samtidig som det tydeliggjøres velferdsstatens "samfunnslighet". Med dette tilbys det en teori som makter å integrere de forskjellige til dels motsigende/paradoksale aspektene i begrepsapparatet til den "klassiske" samfunnsvitenskapelig velferdsstatsforskning ; This dissertation has two objectives: Analyse central conceptual constructs of the welfare state research in the social sciences with the help of a systems theoretical method and reformulate the results by applying an alternative perspective based on the concept of modern systems theory developed by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann. The central research question is how welfare state and society are conceptualised and how they are related to each other. However, in the social sciences literature the welfare state research is described as a confusing, impressive and appealing research area. While social scientists elaborate on the different theoretical approaches to the welfare state they do not necessarily elaborate on the welfare state research itself. Conducting a communication theoretical analysis of this field of research this dissertation wants to close this gap. The focus is on the so-called conditions of possibility as they condense and structure the self-reference of this special field of study. It is stated that these conditions of possibility do not only depend on reductions of social theory about society but also on operative hybridity stemming from recursive overlap of multiple systems references. Conceptual asymmetry and self-referential ambiguity are being observed, something which accounts for an affirmative relation to the political systems semantics. The analysis of the welfare state research applies the whole spectre of systems theoretical methods: Form-, media-, semantics-, systems- and coupling-analysis are being conducted providing a communication and differentiation theoretical description of the welfare state research in the social sciences. The results of these analyses prove evidence for the research hypothesis that the conceptual framework of this research area depends on asymmetry and operational hybridity. In the second part of the dissertation the analysed concept is contrasted with a systems theoretical perspective. The notion of the modern society being a welfare state dependent society is widened by the notion of the welfare state being a societal phenomenon. From the point of view of the theory of functional differentiation the somehow confusing and paradoxical elements of the conceptual framework of the welfare state research in the social sciences are being grasped and integrated conceptually.

Rapporten dokumenter at dereguleringen av den norske og finske økonomien først og fremst handlet om politikk og politiske prosesser, og i liten grad begrunnet i økonomisk teori. Heller ikke neoliberal filosofi slik vi kjenner den fra USA og Storbritannia spilte noen stor rolle i de to landene. Isteden handlet det om forestillingen om, og fremveksten av, en ny type velferdsstat med behov for en moralsk legitimering av autonomi. ; The report documents that the deregulation of the Norwegian and Finnish economy primarily was about politics and political processes, and to a much lesser extent about justifications rooted in economic theory. Nor neoliberal philosophy as we know it from the US and Britain played a major role in the two countries. Instead, it was about the notion, and the emergence of, a new kind of welfare state in need of a moral legitimization of autonomy.

Als Ausgangspunkt für die Bearbeitung und Untersuchung des Themas wird die Auseinandersetzung mit einigen theoretischen Auffassungen von Nachhaltigkeit in seiner Dreidimensionalität von Ökologie-Ökonomie-Sozialem im Allgemeinen als auch aus norwegischem Blickwinkel im Besonderen gestellt. Aufgrund der Komplexität der hierbei zu untersuchenden Problemstellungen und Strukturen sowie der mehrschichtigen Interaktionen der beteiligten Handlungsakteure konnte mittels eines transdisziplinären Forschungsansatzes dem Anliegen dieser Aufgabenstellung am ehesten entsprochen werden. Unter Zugrundelegung der theoretischen Grundlagen des Wohlfahrtsstaates wird im Kapitel II unter Einbeziehung der drei Nachhaltigkeitsdimensionen Ökologie-Ökonomie-Soziales der Bezug zum norwegischen Wohlfahrtsstaat hergestellt. Notwendigerweise wird hierbei insbesondere auch die Abhängigkeit vom Erdöl und deren gewaltigen Einnahmen dargestellt. In diesem Zusammenhang erfolgt eine Auseinandersetzung mit unterschiedlichen Auffassungen hinsichtlich der Verwendung der enormen Erdöleinnahmen und deren Anlage in Fonds auseinander. Konsequenterweise werden am Ende dieses Kapitels die Defizite des norwegischen Wohlfahrtsmodells und Möglichkeiten seiner Weiterentwicklung aufgezeigt. Die in Kapitel III durchgeführte Analyse der norwegischen Wohlfahrtsökonomie und der Industriepolitik untersucht und diskutiert besonders die norwegische Industriepolitik und Erdölwirtschaft, die Wertschöpfungslücke und Symptome der Holländischen Krankheit, die von wesentlicher Bedeutung für das Gesamtverständnis des untersuchten Gegenstandes sind. Wie bereits im einführenden Kapitel angesprochen, setzt eine nachhaltige Reproduktion der norwegischen Wohlfahrtsökonomie v. a. eine Transformation des gegenwärtigen industriellen Systems der Produktion in eine nachhaltige Art und Weise des Wirtschaftens voraus. Folgerichtig werden im Kapitel IV, ausgehend von verschiedenen Nachhaltigkeitsauffassungen – hier starke und schwache Nachhaltigkeit –, die drei Zieldimensionen von Nachhaltigkeit im sogenannten Drei-Säulen-Modell betrachtet und versucht, diese Sichtweise bei der Operationalisierung von Nachhaltigkeit durch Integration des im nationalen Handlungsplans enthaltenen Indikatorensatzes in das integrierte Nachhaltigkeitsdreieck (IND) auf die norwegischen Wohlfahrtsökonomie anzuwenden. Bei der Operationalisierung unter Anwendung des IND wurde der Umfang der Unzulänglichkeiten der im nationalen Nachhaltigkeitskonzept verwendeten Indikatoren deutlich. Gleichzeitig wurde versucht, einen Ausblick für die weitere Arbeit in Richtung der Entwicklung einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung der norwegischen Gesellschaft in Form eines nationalen Masterplanes zu geben. Im Ergebnis dessen wurde in Kapitel V zusammenfassend herausgearbeitet, dass in Abhängigkeit von der jeweiligen Entscheidung für welche Art von Nachhaltigkeit sich die politischen Entscheidungsträger in Norwegen entscheiden, vorrangig eine Umgestaltung der gegenwärtigen industriellen Struktur in eine nachhaltige Art und Weise des Wirtschaftens, bei der diese in die Ökologie und die sozialen Prozesse der norwegischen Gesellschaft zu inkludieren sind, erforderlich ist. Wie in der Einleitung angemerkt, war die Frage einer Optimierung der Portfoliostruktur der in Fonds angelegten Einnahmen aus der Erdöl- und Erdgasförderung nicht Gegenstand der durchgeführten Untersuchung. Daher konnten auch keine begründeten Aussagen getroffen werden, ob aus den Fondserträgen das gegenwärtige Wohlfahrtsniveau auch für zukünftige Generationen nachhaltig zu finanzieren sein wird. ; Sustainability has an economic, an ecological, and a social dimension. These three dimensions are combined with peculiarities of the Norwegian case. This multidimensional approach relating to the Norwegian case has been pursued in a trans-disciplinary manner. Starting from the theoretical bases of welfare economics, a three-dimensional approach to sustainability is related to the Norwegian case in chapter 1. Obviously, for Norway, the dependence on crude oil and the enormous revenues this generates are in the focus of this analysis. Different approaches as to how to invest these revenues in different investment funds are discussed. Some shortcomings of the current approach are identified and remedies are looked for. The analysis of the Norwegian welfare state in chapter 3 and the industrial policy it pursues require some considerations, whose character is philosophy of science. The so-called Dutch disease (stemming from an utter dependence on revenues from natural gas extraction) are related to Norwegian industrial policy, notably as far as the oil-based industrial sector is concerned. A sustainable industrial policy requires a deep transformation of the current industrial sector. Different concepts of sustainability are translated into policy options for Norway in chapter 4. Deficiencies of the current approach to Norwegian industrial policy are made apparent from the three-dimensional sustainability point of view. Consequently, suggestions for a sustainable approach to Norwegian economic policy are followed. In chapter 5 it is shown in conclusion how a systematic reorientation of Norwegian industrial policy should be accomplished with a view to sustainability. Optimizing the revenues from funds in which the Norwegian oil revenues have been invested is not the purpose of this dissertation. For this reason, the sustainability of revenues from these funds and their benefits to future generations is not part of the analysis. ; Problemer av den norske velferdsøkonomien og noen konsekvenser av en bærekraftig reproduksjon Som et utgangspunkt for behandlingen og undersøkelse av emnet tas noen av de teoretiske begrepene av bærekraft generelt, samt fra det norske synspunktet særdeles. Pga. kompleksiteten i saken skal undersøkes problemer og strukturer samt lagdelte interaksjoner av impliserte handlingsaktører kunne oppfylles best ved hjelp av en trans-disiplinær forskningsansats for denne oppgaven. Basert på det teoretiske grunnlaget for velferdsstaten lykkes i kapittel II å lage, gjennom involvering av de tre bærekraftige dimensjonene økologi- økonomi-sosial hensynet til den norske sosiale velferdsstaten. Nødvendigvis fremstilles hermed avhengigheten av enorme oljeinntektene. I denne sammenheng, drøfter forfatteren med ulike meninger om bruk av svære oljeinntekter og sine investeringer i fonder. Følgelig identifiseres på slutten av dette kapittelet manglene ved den norske velferdsmodellen og sine utviklingsmuligheter. Analysen av den norske velferdsstaten økonomi og næringspolitikk gjennomføres i kapittel III. Her er de spesielle avsnittene som utforsker den norske petroleumsindustrien, politikk og økonomi, hull i verdikjeden og symptomene på nederlandsk sykdom og som er viktig for den totale forståelsen av forskningsgjenstanden. Som omtalt i innledningskapitlet, er en bærekraftig reproduksjon av den norske velferdsøkonomien primært en transformasjon av dagens industrielle system som må erstattes gjennom et bærekraftig produksjonssystem. Logisk, er betraktet i kapittel IV på grunnlag av ulike bærekraft ideer – her kalles sterk og svak - tre siktemål-dimensjoner i den såkalte tre-søyle modell og prøvet denne sikten under operasjonaliseringen av bærekraft gjennom integrering av den i den nasjonale handlingsplanen innholdene sett av indikatorer i den integrerte bærekraft trekanten å anvende det på den norske velferdsøkonomien. Med operasjonaliseringen av den integrerte bærekraft trekant ble gjort omfanget av manglene av de nasjonale indikatorene som er brukt i bærekraftighets-konseptet åpenlyst. Samtidig ble forsøkt å gi et utsyn for videre arbeid mot utviklingen av en bærekraftig utvikling av det norske samfunnet i form av en nasjonal hovedplan. Som et resultat, ble utarbeidet og oppsummert i kapittel V at, avhengig av bestemte valg av hva slags bærekraft, beslutningstakere bestemmer seg for i Norge, er først og fremst en omlegging av dagens industrielle strukturen i en bærekraftig. Som nevnt i innledningen, var spørsmålet om en operasjonalisering av den porteføljestrukturen av inntektene fra olje-og gas investert i fond ikke gjenstand av den gjennomførte undersøkelsen. Derfor kunne heller ikke underbygget begrunnende uttalelser, om fra fondavkastningene kan finansieres dagens velferdsnivå for tilkommende generasjoner også. ; Die URN ist in der pdf-Datei fälschlicherweise mit "urn:nbn:de:gbv:547-2013300069" angegeben.

Master's thesis in Social work with families and children ; The value of social work is not only to reinforce preconceived ideals. Sometimes the best social work practice may be to contribute to fairer and more effective social institutions. If for instance we picture a context in country A of a well ordered social policy and country B were it is not working, the chances of effective social work would be higher in country A. Should and could the shape of the policy in country A then be exported to country B? This is the paramount question I address at two levels in this thesis: First I look and explore the policy issue: the scope, capacity and implementation condition in two different social contexts: Norway and Bolivia using the child welfare service as an exemplar policy area. Then I analyze if such policies, using Norway as a model, may be transfer from the one context to the other within the interest area of policy learning, policy making, policy transfer and political development. I not only found a possible way by which political development can be promoted using policy transfer, but this research contributes with an innovative scope in transfer research, this is transfer as a tool for political development.

This report concludes the PopAge project (Population ageing and long-term care: the family-welfare state balance revisited), financed by the Norwegian Research Council, and carried out in 2009–2011 at NOVA. Ageing of the population changes in a fundamental way the balance between generations in the family as well as in the welfare state. The primary objective of the project was to build new knowledge about the changing role of the family and the welfare state in current Norwegian long-term care systems, and to evaluate the risk for increasing social inequalities in response to population ageing. Secondary, more specific objectives were, to explore the needs, motivations and barriers for family care, to describe the character and consequences of different mixes of formal and informal care, and to inform policies that may support a fair distribution of public long-term care resources. The report is organised in four sections. Part I (Chapter 1) introduces the project and research questions, and describes basic perspectives, data and methodologies. Part II provides a macro perspective on long-term care in four chapters. Chapter 2 summarizes current knowledge about population ageing, including the assessment of health among future elders: Do we live longer in good health, or in poor health? So far, research indicates support for the dynamic equilibrium hypothesis, implying longer lives with disease. But care needs are postponed to a later – and shorter – period of late life. Chapter 3 describes the position of elders in the welfare state in general, and in long-term care in particular, and what is to be expected in the coming years. Estimates vary considerably; hence there is considerable uncertainty in projections. According to a medium alternative, total expenses (and employment) in long-term care is expected to double over the next forty years, but will yet stay within a limit of around four per cent of GDP. Chapter 4 outlines the development of long-term care services since the 1960s. Norway is among the countries with the most generous access to public services, but services have leveled off, and even declined the later years. De-institutionalization characterises care for younger clients, whereas institutional care (nursing homes) is still dominant in elder care. Services are mainly public, provided by local governments, but increasingly subject to a contracting out policy. Chapter 5 analyses local variations in long-term care, which is considerable between the 430 Norwegian municipalities, not only in volume, but also in profile of services. The smaller municipalities have in general the higher volume of services, partly because needs are larger, and partly because of more generous state subsidies. Part III includes four chapters with analyses of health, family networks, and care exchanges based in a large, nationally representative survey. Chapter 6 describes how family networks, and needs, vary over the life course, including the risk of being squeezed between obligations towards young children and old parents. Chapter 7 analyses help relationships – the role of families, and the welfare state for care of older (parents) and younger persons in need. The family and welfare state balance in elder care is estimated to around 50–50, but the welfare state (public services) dominates when nursing care is needed, primarily because elders with extensive needs sooner or later move into assisted housing or a nursing home. Chapter 8 describes the pathways to the nursing home via qualitative interview with the primary family carer of a number of elders who have recently been institutionalized. These pathways are quite different, gradual and acute, short-term and long-term, but common for all of them is a period in hospital prior to the nursing home. Norms and preferences for care are discussed in chapter 9. Norwegian attitudes about the role of families and the welfare state are compared to attitudes in other countries, indicating that family norms are less strict, and the belief in the welfare state more strong, in Norway than in countries further south and east on the European continent. Elder care is in Norway seen as a welfare state responsibility, but supplemented with family care. Other countries tend to leave the main responsibility with the family. The final Part IV adds comparative perspectives (Chapter 10), and concludes the report with a discussion about sustainable care (Chapter 11). The Nordic model is expensive, and need support from a trust in government and a willingness to pay taxes. The continental model is hard to reconcile with modern family life and equal opportunities for women and men. Population ageing indicates a need for larger investments in the welfare state, but moderately so in Norway compared to many other countries, where ageing is more radical and current services less available. There is likely a limit for what a country can spend on «social issues», but we are hardly there yet. A sustainable care system need both the family and the welfare state, but families can hardly shoulder more than today when populations get older. The solution lies therefore mainly in the welfare state, and is not primarily a question of resources, but of solidarity. ; Aldringen av befolkningen endrer balansen mellom generasjonene og forutsetningene for en bærekraftig omsorg. Rapporten kartlegger behov og omsorg over livsløpet, utviklingen av omsorgstjenestene, variasjonen mellom kommunene, idealer og realiteter i dagens situasjon og dilemmaer for årene framover. Rapporten avrunder prosjektet «Aldringen av befolkningen og ansvarsdelingen mellom familien og velferdsstaten», som ble finansiert av program for Helse- og omsorgstjenester ved Norges forskningsråd og gjennomført ved NOVA med bidrag fra Statistisk sentralbyrå. Flere datakilder og metoder er anvendt, dels surveydata fra de to store livsløpsundersøkelsene ved NOVA: NorLAG og LOGG, og dels registerdata fra Statistisk sentralbyrås databaser for kommunene (KOSTRA) og brukerne av omsorgstjenester (IPLOS), og supplert med kvalitative intervjuer.

During the last forty years the Norwegian states housing policy underwent large changes. Housing markets were liberalized, brick and mortar subsidies were phased out, and a general policy aimed at all members of society was replaced with policies directed at marginalized groups. At the same time the state continued the postwar policy of subsidizing homeowners through generous tax-deductions and low rates of property and housing taxation. This report attempts to document and analyse these shifts and continuities in the Norwegian states housing policy from 1970 to the present time. The main purpose of the report is to provide a work of reference for journalists, scholars, bureaucrats and members of the general public looking to enhance their knowledge of Norwegian housing policy. In addition, it is meant as a contribution to the scholarly literature on housing policy and the general development of Norwegian politics in the last decades.The report is based on a rich variety of primary sources, as well as the works of scholars who previously have taken an interest in the development of Norwegian housing policy. In chapter 1 the main empirical and theoretical foundations of the report are outlined. The chapter also contains a brief overview of the changes in the Norwegian states housing policy from 1970 to 2010. It is claimed that even though the changes in policy were immense, particularly during the last twenty years, the state did not withdraw completely from the housing sector. The state continued to regulate and intervene in housing markets, albeit in a more cautious manner, it is argued. Furthermore, it is argued that the deregulation of housing markets and reduction of subsidies was not the result of a coordinated, neo-liberal masterplan, but rather the product of many different drivers of change. The reduction of general brick and mortar subsidies and the turn towards selective, targeted subsidies is described as the result of a cross-party consensus and cooperation among political elites (see chapter 3). Political elites also played a prominent role when it came to abolishing rent control in the privat rental sector (see chapter 6). On the other hand, market forces and the desire of homeowners to sell to the higest bidder, is judged as the most significant driver of change behind the deregulation of the cooperative sector (see chapter 6). Finally, the interest and strategies of landlords and housing investors is deemed the major cause behind the conversion of private rented properties and the legalization of freehold flats during the 1970s and 80s (see chapter 6). Four persepectives on the development of Norwegian housing policy in the years of liberalization are presented and discussed in chapter 2: the fall of housing policy, the triumph of freedom and the market, social democratic pragmatism and the triumph of capital. The aim of the chapter is to stimulate interest and reflection on the development of Norwegian housing policy. It is meant as an introduction the the empirical chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The reduction of general brick and mortar subsidies and the turn towards selective and targeted instruments of state support is documented and analysed in chapter 3. The chapter emphasizes that this was a slow and gradual process. Chapter 4 is devoted to the rise of the modern system» of housing allowances from the late 1960s onwards. A central conlusion in the chapter is that housing allowance increasingly was viewed as an instrument in the states strategy to combat poverty from the late 1990s. The political history of housing taxation from the early 1970s to the present time is documented and discussed in chapter 5. Central to the chapter is the housing taxation committees proposal from the early 1970s. The negative reactions towards this proposal contributed to the shelving of social democratic plans to increase the tax burdenon homeowners. Chapter 6, Market and regulation, documents the states attempts to regulate and deregulate the main tenures of the Norwegian housing sector from 1970 to 2010. Thus, the chapter contains separate sections devoted to owner-occupied-, cooperative- and rental housing. An important line of argument in the chapter is that the ideological conflicts between left and right concerning homeownership and the regulation of the housing market in the 1970s, gave way to political consensus during the 1990s and 2000s. Today all main political parties accept the right of individuals to sell their homes at prices determined by the market. This was by no means the case in the 1970s, when the Labour government toyed with the idea to greatly expand the states power over the transactions in the housing market. In the final chapter (chapter 7) an interpretation of the development of Norwegian housing policy from the mid-1990s is presented. The policy changes over the last fifteen years are summarized by way of the following headlines: A concern for the challenges of distinct sections of society (youth, the elderly, the poor, immigrants, homeless people). The state as an enabler for well functioning housing markets From general subsidies to targeted housing policy measures The States Housing Bank: From housing bank to an instrument in the states welfare and housing policy directed at the poorest and/or most marginalized households. The municipalities: From an enabler of housing construction for the general public to an overriding concern for disadvanted groups. Housing policy, a part of welfare policy and the states strategy for preventing and combating poverty. The chapter concludes that the political differences in the field of housing policy between the governments of left and right have been quite small over the last fifteen years. Despite rhetorical differences, all governments have given priority to selective housing policy instruments aimed at the poorest households. ; Omleggingen av norsk boligpolitikk fra ca. 1970 til 2010 dokumenteres og drøftes i denne rapporten, som er basert på et omfattende kildemateriale. Egne kapitler er viet til statlig boligbeskatning, bostøtte, boligfinansiering og markedsreguleringer. De siste tiårenes «bolig-sosiale vending», dvs. boligpolitikkens orientering mot de mest vanskeligstilte husholdene, er også behandlet utførlig. Rapporten er ment å fungere som et oppslagsverk for forskere, journalister, politikere, embetsverk og representanter for den opplyste allmennhet. Hovedformålet med rapporten er på denne måten å bidra med kunnskap til de som utformer, diskuterer og interesserer seg for norsk boligpolitikk. I tillegg er rapporten ment å supplere den eksisterende forskningslitteraturen om de boligpolitiske endringene de siste førti årene. Endelig er rapporten ment som et bidrag til forskningen om velferdsstatens utvikling i bred forstand. Dokumentasjonen og analysene i rapporten vil være interessante for historikere og samfunnsvitere som ønsker å utforme helhetlige synteser om den politiske utviklingen i Norge etter 2. verdenskrig.