Networking Enforced–Comparing Social Services'Collaborative Rationales across Different Welfare Regimes

Abstract

Collaboration and networking are ubiquitous, versatile features of social service provision in most Western countries. However, it is an open question whether networking means and entails the same across countries. Comparing regulatory frameworks in three jurisdictions representing distinctive ‘worlds of welfare services’ – Germany, Norway and Quebec – this article aims at eliciting the normative rationales that underpin and inform local service networks in child welfare and protection (CWP) systems. In Norway, where services are little diversified and largely insular, networking appears as a way of opening up for greater organizational plurality, within and beyond the public sector realm. In Germany in contrast, where services are highly pluralized and fragmented, networks are seen as an instrument for streamlining complexity. As for Quebec – an intermediate case in some respects – networking is envisioned as a catalyst for aligning two co‐existing service streams and mitigating the child protection–family support divide. Interestingly, in all three places, networking is now being enforced through similar highly formalized, top‐down regulatory provisions, even though the intended directions of change differ markedly. This has implications for CWP policy as well as research on networks at large.

Social services in post-industrial Europe: an incomplete success story and its tragic moments

“…The following analysis is based on the broad literature dealing with the evolving landscape of social service provision in Europe; on comparative research the author of this chapter has undertaken in recent years (Aiken and Bode, 2009;Bode et al, 2013;Breimo et al, 2016); and on findings from various contributions to the COST Action SO.S. COHESIONSocial services, welfare states and places.…”

Evolutionary Game of Social Network for Emergency Mobilization (SNEM) of Magnitude Emergencies: Evidence from China

“…At present, the studies related to social network are mainly divided into two categories: social network as research methods or research objects; this paper is the latter. e studies on social network as the object are mainly concentrated in community governance, emergency management, and public services [6][7][8][9][10]. In emergency management, few people have directly focused on the SNEM, but the studies related to social network are relatively rich and mainly focus on the construction, types, functions, and organizational analysis of social network.…”

Making sense, discovering what works…

“…In both Norway and Quebec, crossagency networks have flourished at the local level and come to enjoy broad support in decision-making and professional circles. Over the last decade, in particu-Journal of Comparative Social Work 2016/2 5 lar, governments have encouraged, and sometimes mandated, a range of collaborative schemes in welfare provision (Breimo et al, 2016), often involving various private actors.…”

“…Support for a top-down 'integrated' system of care was fueled by positive results from several experimental initiatives carried out in the province during the 2000s (Demers, 2013). Over time, the combination of various initiatives and reforms would cause two collaboration approaches to coexist, one increasingly hierarchical and constrainingmaterialized by the CSSS and their mandate to establish networks in most social service domainsand another more consensual and enabling, typified by a set of voluntary arrangements (Breimo et al, 2016).…”

“…As stated above, in both Quebec and Norway, collaborative endeavours have increasingly been promoted through government mandates embedded in distinct regulatory contexts; however, such mandates are defined differently in each jurisdiction, thereby variously affecting the direction and shape of network schemes (Breimo et al, 2016).…”