CALL FOR PAPERS

Background and objectives

Third sector organisations in Central and Eastern European Countries reveal similar characteristics that simultaneously distinguish them from third sector organisations in other societies. These inward similarities and outward differences can be explained in the context of the state-socialist type of welfare system that prevailed in these societies for almost half a century. There has been a ”boom” in the development of third sector organisations after the system change, however, the third sector in these countries is still heavily ambiguous. Moreover, despite the general similarities there are striking differences in the level of development and characteristics of third sector organisations that emerged in a relatively short period in the mentioned societies. Especially in terms of development of service providing organisations and how these organisations are becoming integrated in the changing welfare systems.

As the basic and potentially guiding research framework of the WP we introduce socio-political discourses/strategies that are commonly and European-wide employed by national actors to plan and implement reforms. In this manner we are able to limit the 'endless' plurality of emerging welfare systems and trends in third sector development. The abovementioned discourses/strategies (classical welfarism, empowerment and participation, commercialisation and consumerism, and social investment) are defined as concepts and as practices-strategies which include the priorities of certain actors and their coalitions with which they legitimise their struggle for power (Evers, 2008:2). The implementation of these strategies or their individual elements determines the character of the changing/emerging welfare systems and thereby the importance and role of the third sector as their important structural element. It is not to be ignored that within individual systems different strategies or even elements of the strategies were applied in different socio-political fields thus creating the impression of ad-hoc solutions that are becoming institutionalised.

Our primary aim is therefore to search for and explain the interdependence among changes in entire welfare systems and changes in the importance, character and the role of third sector organisations in Central and Eastern European societies. We intend accomplish our goal by tackling the following or similar questions: Which strategies or their individual elements form the basis of socio-political reforms/changes in individual fields? Which social actors are the initiators and creators of the reforms/changes? How have the actors changed over the last 15 years? To what extent has the proportion changed between third sector organisations which are primarily service providers and those which operate for the common good of its members (i.e. expressive organisations) over the last 15 years? What is the position of third sector organisations in the hierarchy of sectors that provide individual types of services? What is the character of third sector organisations (is it determined by the operating principle of organisations and by the instruments that are applied)? What is the role of third sector organisations in the overall welfare system and regarding the relationship with users/citizens?

For additional information regarding the background, research model and goals of the WP/conference, please consult below stated CONSIDERATIONS AND GUIDELINES.

Abstract submission and key dates

An abstract of no more than 300 words has to be submitted before the 1^st of November 2008 to WP46 responsible (see below). Notices of acceptance will be sent out by the 15^th of November 2008. The final papers are due to be distributed by the 20^th of January 2009.

Participants

The conference is open to all members of the CINEFOGO Network as well as to other interested colleagues.

Venue and organizer

The conference will be held at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, Ljubljana, Slovenia. For more information, please visit www.fdv.uni-lj.si. The conference will be organized by the Faculty of Social Sciences (FSS-UL) – WP46 responsible within the CINEFOGO Network of Excellence on Civil Society and New Forms of Governance in Europe.

Costs

There will be no conference fee. The organizer will take care of accommodation (2 nights max), while travel costs have to be covered by each participant/institution.

Contact and further information

Do not hesitate to ask for any further information.

WP46 Responsible:

prof. Zinka Kolarič (NC), e-mail: zinka.kolaric@fdv.uni-lj.si

Tomaž Deželan (NC assistant), e-mail: tomaz.dezelan@fdv.uni-lj.si

Tatjana Rakar (NC assistant), e-mail: tatjana.rakar@fdv.uni-lj.si

BASIC CONSIDERATIONS AND GUIDELINES

1.Theoretical-methodological considerations

a) From the concepts of the welfare state and welfare state regime to the concept of the welfare system

In the investigation of  the role of third sector organisations in changing welfare systems in Central and Eastern European societies, it is essential to use the concept of the welfare system as the analytical tool. Drawing on Kaufman (2003) and Seeleib-Kaiser (2007), Schubert, Hegelich and Bazant (2008) define the welfare system concept as an extension of the established concepts of the welfare state and welfare state regimes. The concept of the welfare system embraces all kinds of arrangements which involve social risks and working towards new solutions. This means that it embraces all the  fields (also the field of tax policy) and all the actors that shape and implement 'welfare policies', including non-state actors such as non-governmental organisations, families and private firms (ibid., p.34).

By end of the 1980s, as researchers of the social-political reality in ex-socialist societies we already realised that the established concepts of the welfare state and welfare state regime represented a 'methodological barrier'. We found that, in addition to the state, which played a dominant yet insufficient role in ensuring social security and social services to its citizens, a significant role was also played by firms and the family, with the latter bearing a heavy burden. The actors and institutional structures through which policies were framed and implemented differed from those in Western societies. Using both concepts as analytical instruments, we sought to find out how the structure of the concept would be affected by the introduction of a new element, identified in real life. We were asking the questions whether the relationship between the structural elements would change and something new would emerge, and whether the formulation of a new regime would undermine the whole existing typology?

These considerations informed our formulation of the concept of the welfare system. Like the authors mentioned above, we defined it as a broader concept than the concepts of the welfare state and welfare state regime. The welfare system is an open and universal concept that embraces not only the institutions, programmes and measures with which the state provides social security and social services to its citizens, but also those evolving and functioning according to the logic of the market, as well as those operating within the domain of civil society and the community. It embraces the producers as well as the users of services and financial transfers, their norms and values, and the relations among them that emerge from the management, financing, production and distribution of transfers and services, with which individuals ensure their social protection and well-being (Svetlik and Kolarič, 1987:23). The concept is based on the assumption of relative autonomy and interdependence between the sphere of the state, the sphere of the market and the sphere of civil society and community (e.g. nonprofit-voluntary sector and informal sector – family, kinship, neighbours, groups of friends) as the structural elements of the system. The derived thesis is that during the historical development of individual societies, which means depending on specific economic, cultural, and political conditions, different hierarchies of spheres (market, state, civil society and community) emerged from which individuals obtain resources to ensure their social protection and well-being. The different historically formed hierarchies of spheres represent different welfare systems.

Application of the welfare system concept as an analytical instrument resulted in the formulation of a thesis according to which in the specific conditions of the development of former-socialist societies a particular welfare system emerged – the state-socialist welfare system. This system was characterised by the dominant role of the state. The state was the owner, financer and controller of all institutions and organisations that produced services and made financial transfers for the provision of the welfare of its citizens. The means and services ensured by the state, together with those that were obligatorily provided by enterprises for their employees, were of course insufficient to meet all the needs of individuals. Therefore, informal social networks, mainly the family and kinship, carried a large burden in the provision of social protection and services of their members. Citizens did not have many opportunities to ensure means and services from the other two spheres, from the sphere of civil society and from the market. The role of civil society organisations was weak because of certain formal obstacles to citizens’ self-organisation and, most of all, due to the limitations on the 'social/charitable' role of the Church. A market in the sphere of service provision as well as in the sphere of insurance did not exist. Further, the intention to dismantle the market in general, including the labour market, was embedded in the whole system. In this way the system was based on a silent partnership between the working class and the ruling Communist Party nomenclature (Svetlik, 1992), which assured the working class lifetime employment and the resulting social protection in exchange for the necessary political legitimacy (Kolarič, Kopač, Rakar, 2008: 569-595).

The empirical examination of the described structure of the welfare system directed us towards ‘methodological nationalism’, that is, to a search for similarities between the systems within ex-socialist societies and the differences with regard to Western European welfare systems. The similarities within and differences outside became particularly evident in empirical research into the levels of development, potential and characteristics of voluntary organisations and associations (organised civil societies, third sector organisations). These differed from those organisations in Western societies and were very similar in Central and Eastern European societies in at least these four aspects: a) they were mostly 'members serving' (expressive) and not 'public serving' organisations (service providers); b) compared to organisations in Western societies they had a similarly low level of professionalisation and a low proportion of the integration of volunteers; c) they acted in the same dominant fields (sport and recreation as well as culture); and d) they had a very similar income structure.

The identification of the listed similarities in the 1990s – at a time when ex-socialist societies had already entered the process of transition – undermines the view that the analysis of institutional particularities of socialist welfare systems is irrelevant. Contrary to this view, we believe that also here it is necessary to consider the 'path-dependency effect', that is, to relate changes to the old institutional structures.

b) From convergence research to a plurality of welfare systems

The transition of ex-socialist societies to democratic capitalist societies involved at least these three processes: 1) privatisation and liberalisation; 2) market deregulation including the labour market; and 3) withdrawal of the state from the financing of social security and ensuring of social services. A positive effect of the third process was a 'renaissance' of civil society, voluntary and non-governmental organisations, that is, third sector organisations as service providers that importantly complement the services provided by the state and develop new, innovative and flexible forms of services production and distribution (Ferge, 2001:132-138).

It is worthwhile to add to this general outline of the 'transitional development' that in individual societies these processes developed at different speeds and intensities, with different interior and exterior actors with their different interests and ideologies, which all led to different results. In addition, these societies differ in terms of integration at the EU level. Some are still not included in the process of moving closer to joining the EU, while others are already members of European integrations. With all these differences in mind, we have to reject the question that has so far dominated the research of reforms in the sphere of social policy in ex-socialist societies, namely, the question of which Western welfare state regime the emerging welfare regimes will converge to. This question is central in numerous studies that have very constructively combined the analysis of the broader transitional events/developments with changes/reforms in ensuring social security and social services to the citizens (Gotting, 1998, Deacon, 2000, Kvist, 2004, Sykes, 2005).

Deriving from those studies that include individual groups of societies (Brusis, 1999, Aidukante, 2004, Schubert, Hegelich, Bazant 2008) and whose findings explicitly point to big differences in the ways of solving socio-political issues, and considering the fact that the processes of socio-political reforms have not yet finished, we can/have to base the research on the thesis of a plurality of emerging welfare systems.

2. The importance and role of the third sector in changing welfare systems

The thesis of a plurality of changing/emerging welfare systems in Central and Eastern European societies leads to our second thesis, namely, the thesis of  plurality/diversity of trends and the related importance and role of the third sector (organised civil societies, non-profit voluntary organisations, non-governmental organisations) in these societies.

Evidence for this plurality/diversity derives from third sector research in these societies and is also suggested by analyses of quantitative data, although there are only a few of them (Kolarič, Rakar, 2007). Most of these investigations are pre-comparative, which means that they were carried out within individual societies and that their analysis included those elements/characteristics of third sector organisations relevant to the aim of the investigations; the aim mostly being defined as an improvement in the functioning and management of these organisations (see, for example, Zimmer and Priller, 2004). The aim of our investigation is not to go beyond the 'pre-comparative' stage of investigating the third sector but, by implementing the concept of welfare system as an analytical instrument, to go beyond the isolated investigation of the third sector in order to explain all major determinants of various trends in the development of this sector in individual societies, and differences in the importance and roles that third sector organisations adopt in individual societies.

In order to achieve this aim we suggest devising the research model presented below.

3. The research model

As the basis of the research model we employ socio-political discourses/strategies that are common in Europe and used by national actors to plan and implement reforms. In this way we limit the 'endless' plurality of emerging welfare systems and trends in third sector development. Evers (2008) lists the following discourses or strategies: classical welfarism, empowerment and participation, commercialisation and consumerism, and social investment. He defines them as concepts and as practices-strategies which include the priorities of certain actors and their coalitions with which they legitimise their struggle for power (Evers, 2008:2).

The implementation of these strategies or their individual elements determines the character of the changing/emerging welfare systems and thereby the importance and role of the third sector as their important structural element. We should not ignore the fact that within individual nations in different socio-political fields (e.g. the field of ensuring social security, the field of ensuring educational services, the field of ensuring health services etc.), different strategies or only elements of the strategies were applied, creating the impression that they are ad-hoc solutions that are becoming institutionalised.

The research model is structured so that each of the individual strategy is defined with/by the elements which to the largest extent determine the character of the welfare system and, with this, the importance and role of individual actors within it. These elements are:

1. the preferred aim that is to be achieved by implementation of the strategy;
2. the preferred hierarchy of the actors-producers who are to contribute to satisfying the aim; here we will define the importance (position in the hierarchy) of organisations of the third sector in relation to other sectors;
3. the preferred way/instruments for meeting the aim which also determines/determine the character of third sector organisations; and
4. the preferred style of governance of the whole welfare system which determines the role of third sector organisations and their relationship with users/citizens.

a) Classical welfarism strategy

1. The aim of this strategy is and has always been to reduce social inequalities. This includes the social right of citizens to basic social security and social services that are accessible to all and on the same conditions.
2. The responsibility for achieving this aim is primarily in the hands of the state and its institutions – the public sector. The manoeuvring space for development of the third sector is not large but it nevertheless enters into a complementary relationship with the state wherever its services fill the welfare gaps that emerge from the structure of the welfare system. This means that it primarily meets those needs for social security and social services which are not met to a sufficient extent or in a sufficient quality by the state or its institutions. Organisations that are service providers only represent a small proportion in the structure of the whole third sector. The predominant proportion of this sector is still represented by expressive organisations which act to the benefit of all their members and are oriented to supporting the family.
3. The preferred way of meeting the aim is through professionalised and standardised service production which, in the development of new knowledge and technologies, in itself carries a certain degree of authoritarianism and paternalism. Through state financing and control, professionalism and meeting the standards also become obligatory for those third sector organisations which are service providers. In their functioning, these are becoming etatised, that is, similar to public sector organisations.

4. The whole welfare system is governed hierarchically by national and local public authorities which are the founders, financers and evaluators of public organisations as well as financers and evaluators of third sector organisations. The role of these organisations is the professionalised and standardised production of services for the state; the user/citizen with their social rights is a client in relation to public sector organisations as well as in relation to third sector organisations.

b) Empowerment and participation strategy

1. The aim of this strategy is to empower individuals and, especially, groups and communities so that they will be able to actively co-design and co-produce services that effectively meet their needs and desires.
2. The responsibility for achieving this aim lies primarily in the hands of third sector organisations; these are the incarnation of civil society (as the good society) and are situated vis-à-vis the 'bad state' and standardised services of its public sector. They are important in their production and expressive function because they represent an alternative to state- and market-services production; they act, in relation to both, with a tendency to include empowered individuals, groups and communities which will be the creators of urgent changes.
3. The way of satisfying the goal is via dialogue and work with groups, communities and networks where professionals and users act as partners in the creation and production of services. This gives these organisations the character of voluntary participatory organisations.
4. The welfare system is governed in a way that allows third sector organisations to participate in public policy-making; they present the voices of those individuals, groups and communities whose needs for social security and social services remain unmet. The user in this context becomes the empowered citizen who wants to co-design and co-produce the services they need regardless of the sector in which the production takes place.

c) Commercialisation and consumerism strategy

1. The ideal of this strategy is freedom of choice of services that meet the preferences of the consumer and where the consumer is the one who chooses.
2. Here, publicly provided social security and social services accessible to all on the same conditions are confronted with social security and social services which individuals provide themselves with in private markets, especially quasi markets. Here a broad manoeuvring space opens up for the development and operation of third sector organisations as service providers, which are commercialised but also directly (e.g. contracts) or indirectly (e.g. vouchers) financed by the state. Their importance lies in their substituting the state in filling those welfare gaps that emerge from the processes of reforms/changes or current political decision-making. It should be noted here that with their functioning and their supply these organisations create new welfare gaps, that is, cause new types of marginalisation and exclusion.
3. The preferred way of producing services is a professionally and promptly provided service suitable to the user. Here it has to be considered that the power of professionals in this context is slightly smaller since the 'expertise' of one professional can always be contrasted with the 'expertise' of another professional. However, competition in quasi markets requires not only the professionalisation but also the specialisation of third sector organisations which are thus becoming increasingly commercialised and increasingly resemble organisations in private markets.
4. The governance actors in this context are still public authorities but they are in association with managers of third sector organisations. They jointly determine the role of these organisations which represent the possibility of a choice (or exit). In relation to them, the citizen is the consumer. Playing the role of the consumer implies knowledge and competence. Naturally, these are lacked by citizens with few resources and little social capital.

d) Social investment strategy

1. The aim of this strategy is to develop human capital in order to enable individuals and groups to act as useful members of society or the economy.
2. The responsibility for pursuing this aim is primarily on public authorities and public agencies because public resources need to be invested most efficiently. Nevertheless, the objects of investment also include third sector organisations, families, local communities as well as private firms. It involves the activation of all potential and resources, the mobilisation of all actors for an 'active society' which will be able to survive in the competitive world. Third sector organisations are an actor that is expected to mobilise citizens and their networks for the active co-design and co-production of services with effective resource management.
3. The preferred way of achieving this aim is professionally managed investment which has to lead to pre-planned results. This is guaranteed by contractual plans that include the rights and responsibilities of all the partners – public authorities, providers and users. In public organisations and third sector organisations, professionals are primarily case managers who document, evaluate and control whether an investment has been successful and the results have been achieved. This gives these organisations an obligatory-participatory character.
4. A welfare system that is based on the activation of all potential and actors also includes their co-governance. This determines the activator role of third sector organisations. In relation to them, the citizen is an active and responsible actor who is aware of certain risks and accepts the interdependence of their rights and responsibilities under the contract. Naturally, the citizen thereby waives their basic civic autonomy and becomes “an active conformist”.

Conclusion

On the basis of the model presented above, a number of research questions can be formulated. Below are a few of them:

1. Which strategies or their individual elements form the basis of socio-political reforms/changes in individual fields (such as e.g. the field of education, the field of health care, the field of child care, care for the elderly, care for marginal groups)?
2. Which social actors are the initiators and creators of the reforms/changes? How have the actors changed over the last 15 years?
3. To what extent over the last 15 years has the proportion changed between third sector organisations which are primarily service providers and those which operate for the common good of its members (i.e. expressive organisations)?
4. What is the position of third sector organisations in the hierarchy of sectors that provide individual types of services?
1. Do they complement the supply of public sector services (filling in primarily structural welfare gaps)?
2. Do they substitute the state and its organisations (filling in newly emerging welfare gaps)?
3. Do they represent an alternative to public as well as market-oriented organisations (service providers)?
4. Do they merely represent one of the objects of social investment and activators of individuals and social groups?
5. What is the character of third sector organisations (is it determined by the operating principle of organisations and by the instruments that are applied):
1. Are they etatised (similar to public sector organisations)?
2. Are they commercialised (similar to market sector organisations)?
3. Are they voluntarily participatory (meaning they include individuals, groups, communities in the establishment and production of services)?
4. Are they obligatorily participatory (do they admit individuals, groups and communities which upon admission take up obligations)?
6. What is the role of third sector organisations in the overall welfare system and regarding the relationship with users/citizens?
1. Are they service producers for the state, with the user/citizen being a client?
2. Are they service providers in quasi markets (do they present an exit), with the user being a consumer?
3. Do they present a voice, with the user being an empowered individual who wants to co-design and co-produce the services they need regardless of the sector that provides them?
4. Are they an activator of the potential of individuals, groups and communities where the user is an active and responsible actor who consents to the interdependence of his or her rights and duties?

The search for answers to the above questions (using qualitative and quantitative research methods) approximates our aim that we defined as searching for and explaining the interdependence among changes in whole welfare systems and changes in the importance, character and role of third sector organisations in Central and Eastern European societies.

REFERENCES

Aidukaite, Jolanta, 2004: The Emergence of the Post-Socialist Welfare State, Stockholm.

Brusis, Martin, 1999: Residuales oder europaisches Wohlfahrtsmodel? In: Prokla, Zeitschrift fur Sozialwissenschaft, vol. 114/1, 73-94.

Deacon, Bob, 2000: Eastern European Welfare States: the impact of the politics of globalization. In: Journal of  European Social Policy, vol.10/2, 146-161.

Evers, Adalbert, 2008: Shaped by Historical Discourses – The Civicness of Social Services, Paper presented at the CINEFOGO conference: Between State and Citizen – The Role of Civic Elements in the Governance and Production of Social Services, Ljubljana.

Ferge, Zsuzsa, 2001: Welfare and “Ill-Fare” Systems in Central-Eastern Europe. In: Sykes, R., Palier, B., Prior, P.M. (eds.): Globalization and European Welfare States. Challenges and Change, Hampshiere and New York, Palgrave.

Gotting, Ulrike, 1998: Transformation der Wohlfahrtsstaten in Mittel und Osteuropa. Eine Zwischenbilanz, Opladen.

Kaufmann, Franz-Xaver, 2003: Varianten des Wohlfahrtsstates, Frankfurt am Main.

Kolarič, Zinka, Kopač, Anja, Rakar, Tatjana, 2008: Schrittweise Reformierung statt “Schocktherapie”: Das slowenische Wohlfahrtssystem. In: Schubert, Klaus, Hegelich, Simon, Bazant, Ursula, 2008: Europaische Wohlfahrtssysteme. Ein Handbuch. VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.

Kolarič, Zinka, Rakar, Tatjana, 2007: The Role of Civil Society Organizations in the Service Provision and Governance in the Framework of the Slovene Welfare System, Paper presented at the CINEFOGO conference, Berlin.

Kvist, Jon, 2004: Does EU Enlargement Start a Race to the Bottom? In: Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 14, 3001-318.

Schubert, Klaus, Hegelich, Simon, Bazant, Ursula (Hrsg.), 2008: Europaische Wohlfahrtssysteme. Ein Handbuch, VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.

Seeleib-Kaiser, Martin, 2007: Welfare State Transformation in Comparative Perspectives: Shifting Boundaries of “Public” and “Private” Social Policy, Paper presented at the Political Studies Association’s Annual Conference 2007, University of Bath.

Svetlik, Ivan, Kolarič, Zinka, 1987: Jugoslovanski system blaginje v pogojih ekonomske krize (Yugoslav  Welfare System in Terms of Economic Crisis). IB revija za planiranje, vol. 21, no.8-9.

Svetlik, Ivan, 1992: Changing Labour Market and Employment Policies. In: Svetlik, Ivan (ed.): Social Policy in Slovenia – Between Tradition and Inovation, Avebury.

Sykes, Rob, 2005: Crisis? What Crisis? In: Social Policy & Society, vol. 4(2), 207-215.