Editorial

This issue of Nordic Social Work Research consists of a collection of articles that each and together revolve around themes and phenomena that historically have been pivotal to the development of the Nordic welfare states: the building of a strong economy, creating possibilities for full employment, and equality as a response to problems of poverty (cf. Esping-Andersen 1990). In recent times, in particular economy and participation on the labour market have been prominent themes not only for employment policies but also as a more and more influential aspect of social welfare policies. Seen from a macro point of view, these themes are often conveyed through problematizations of the future possibility to maintain competitiveness, economic wealth and thus the standard of welfare hitherto well known for Nordic welfare states. Often the suggested solutions have had a strong focus on either raising productivity in general for those on the labour market, including the public sector, or on incentives to make people outside the labour market and in particular those on social security ‘chose’ to work. In Denmark, for example, this political discourse has been significant since the mid 2000s from the welfare commission (2005) to the productivity commission (2014) as well as in several employment and social security reforms. The latest reform in 2015 reduced the total amount of benefits social security recipients can receive, even though some of them might be benefits that, until now, have been considered universal regardless of participation on the labour market. In addition, social security recipients are now required to work 225 h pr. year to retain social security; a responsibility which also includes refugees, immigrants and Danish citizens who have lived abroad, receiving the so called ‘integration benefit’ which consists of considerably less money than social security. This shows how strong the imperative of economic productivity and labour market participation has become, potentially marginalising ideas of equality and problematizations of poverty, in particular with regard to those who are considered ‘outsiders’ (Nissen et al. 2015; Nissen, forthcoming). One might ask how this is possible. An immediate answer could refer to the unfolding of Neoliberalism and ideas of workfare since the 1980s and 1990s (Torfing 2004). However, another answer – perhaps more provocative to a perception of the Nordic welfare state as the worlds wide incarnation of ideals of equality – is that this political and state governed focus on economic productivity and labour market participation is also characteristic for, and structurally embedded in, the very logic of the formation of the welfare state. For example, it has been pointed out that in Finland, labour market participation has been a strong imperative since the period after the Second World War, despite shifting ideological labels of the government, just as it has been argued that a strong differentiation between being inside or outside the labour market contributes to forms of ‘otherness’ (Julkunen and Rauhala 2013). This notion is not contradictive to a focus on the impact of Neoliberalism and workfare. On the contrary, it might explain exactly why and how a Neoliberal impact on the Nordic welfare states is possible at all (Sewell 1992; Ferree 2003; Nissen 2017). If so, instead of thinking about the Nordic welfare states as something stable and invariable underpinned by universal values, we might think of them as social constructs stemming from and creating political and social conflicts and struggles with regard to how to handle complex social issues; struggles that create ambiguities, ambivalences, dilemmas and paradoxes in the actual shaping of and distribution of equality. At the moment, such conflicts and struggles seem to revolve around the question of whether lack of individual economic productivity and participation on the labour market constitute a legitimate explanation to inequality and poverty, or if there is still a profound Nordic kind of solidarity and a strive for equality, regardless of participation on the labour market. How these struggles are addressed politically and in welfare contexts is crucial to social work practice. Besides shaping the current political climate and the economic and legislative conditions for social work practice, it matters how these are translated into and become shaped within local practices. It constitutes a frame for, one the one hand, professionalism and space for discretion and action, and, on the other hand, the approach to people who for various reasons are excluded from participation on the labour market, eventually suffering from inequalities and poverty. This issue of the journal pursues the question offering our readers a possibility to reflect on one of the key questions with regard to the development of the Nordic welfare state.

In the first article Local Worlds of Activation: The Diverse Pathways of Three Swedish Municipalities, Jacobsson, Hollertz and Garstens argue and demonstrate how a welfare state is not a homogenous entity, drawing on 67 interviews with local policy makers and practitioners in three municipalities a well as policy documents. Although the Swedish welfare state, like in other Nordic countries, is adhering to policies of activation, local practices within municipalities may vary from strict ‘work-first’ approaches to more holistic, supportive and less coercive ‘life-first’ oriented approaches (Dean 2003). Local perceptions of activation also have the potential for influencing governmental policies. The authors therefore suggest we speak about ‘local worlds of activation’ (Künzel 2012), emphasising how translations and various ways of implementing state-induced policies are possible. One the one hand, this article underlines how strong an imperative economic productivity and participation on the labour market is. Even though there are local worlds of activation, activation as a ‘path to employment’ constitutes a mainstream approach. On the other hand, the article shows how there are different and therefore also potentially conflicting interpretations of, and explanations to, why some people are outside the labour market, and what aspects of people’s life should be included along that path.

Local contextual interpretations and explanations, including the possibility for variation, are pivotal for the possibilities for doing social work in the context of activation, which is what the second article The Working Relationship between Social Worker and Service User in an Activation Policy Context shows. In this article, Hansen and Natland focus on encounters between social workers and services users enrolled in a Norwegian activation programme, The Qualification Programme based on a field study in four labour and welfare offices including observations from 20 follow up meetings between social workers and service users. The question is whether this activation context, and the need to meet required goals with regard labour market participation, influences the relation between social workers and service users and social work ideals of empowerment and user involvement. The authors find that social workers pragmatically use approaches ranging from bureaucratic to person-centred, and that social work in varies on a continuum from coercive to empowering. Their conclusion is that doing social work in an activation context is possible without compromising social work ideals, and suggest that an explanation to this is the pragmatic and interactional form of social work constructing a working relations ship between social workers and service users (Vogrincic 2005). As such, their analysis seems to support the notion of ‘local worlds of activation’ even in local contexts of social work practice. Therefore, an interesting question is what constitutes such variations? In The Qualification Programme, paid employment is the political goal. However quality of life and self-efficacy are also regarded as important outcomes, and governmentally it is recommended that social workers have a maximum case load of 18 users. This condition may in itself indicate a particular approach and explanation to why some people are outside the labour market. Participation on the labour market may be a goal, but self-efficacy and life-quality also matters. Such an approach also makes it possible to include issues in people’s life stemming from long time experiences of inequalities and poverty.

Self-efficacy among 14 Danish vulnerable long term welfare recipients is explored in the article of Danneris and Dall: Expressing and Responding to Self-efficacy in Meetings between Clients and Social Work Professionals. Self-efficacy is concerned with how individuals believe in their capabilities and, if relevant to social work practice, this should be reflected in how employment services are delivered. The authors focus on employability self-efficacy, defined as the ‘perceived ability to perform skills associated with raising employability’, the latter not only including job related skills but also being physically and mentally able to perform and fulfil a job. On the basis of Conversation Analysis of data from an observational study of meetings concerning the clients’ situation, three forms of expressions of employability self-efficacy are identified: a strong, weak or ambiguous form. In addition, it is found how social workers’ responses to clients’ expressions range from supporting to transferring to challenging. The authors recommend that decisions as well as practices to support, transfer or challenge clients must be made reflexively on the basis of knowledge of the client. What may this knowledge consist of? In the article, the clients expressing ambiguous or weak self-efficacy have either experienced several periods of illness causing absence from work or are suffering from dyslexia. Social work knowledge in the context of activation is thus a complex task requiring a broad range of knowledge about human life in social contexts, how one as social worker can work together and communicate with various people, and how it this relates to human and social change.

In Røysum’s article, How we do social work, not what we do, social workers’ professional knowledge is in focus and questioned. Drawing on a multi-method study, Røysum explores how Norwegian social workers experience and explain social work as professional knowledge and theory, using examples from social work during and after a reform merging state offices for employment, social insurance and components of municipal social services into ‘one-stop shops’ called Nav-offices. Røysum identifies an articulation of a professional ethical perspective, however also finds how the social workers are challenged when it comes to articulating social work theoretically. Social workers’ focus was on how they did social work, not what they did. Røysum calls this a pragmatic and non-protectionist approach to the professional role and professional knowledge, claiming that anyone can practice social work if ‘doing-good’. Thus, her article inspires social work research to explore the substantial aspects of social work, both with regard to what professional practice is, and with regard to how client’s troubles and needs can be understood within a political and social context of activation. If activation is related to economic discourse concerning productivity and labour market participation, which to some extent is marginalising ideas of equality and problematizations of poverty, it is important for social work to include those aspects.

Marginalisation of knowledge is an underlying theme of Ekholm’s article: Mobilising the sport-based community: the construction of social work through rationales of advanced liberalism. The Sport Programme is a Swedish municipal intervention aimed at youth at risk and launched as a response to a social problem of segregation causing tensions in society, crime, and social exclusion. It is assumed to foster a sense of community and social cohesion. Through an analysis of the discourses at play among policy makers and municipal administrators, a particular governmentality is revealed, combining sports and ideals of inclusion with visions of the potentialities of civil society with regard to an activating ‘community’. Public welfare is problematized as bureaucratic and insufficient whereas civil society is associated with authenticity and entrepreneurial capacity to form personal relations, common identity and shared experiences. Ekholm argues that this enables a redistribution of responsibilities for responding to social problems bearing elements of deprofessionalization of professional social work. The Sport Programme and the discourses making it possible becomes a response to consequences of structural and social problems. Thus in the end of his article, Ekholm asks, what ‘it means to professionalism, when “the social” is mutating?’, and ‘What kind of problems are even considered to be social (and, accordingly, a concern for broader society and public authorities)?’ Furthermore, one could ask, what is social work knowledge about social problems, and what happens to the Nordic welfare states, if knowledge regarding equality, inequalities and problematizations of social and structural reasons to poverty are marginalised in the use and spreading of discourses of activation?

The final article, Network Dilemmas. Supplements when Income Doesn’t Cover Family Expenses, by Thorød addresses the issues brought forward by Ekholm. In her article it is explored how families with low income experience network supplements when income does not cover daily expenses. Based on an interview study with one child and one parent in 26 low income families and from a Grounded Theory approach she finds that despite a universal welfare system, people try to provide for themselves. When in need they firstly turn to family and social network. However, being dependent on the help of family and social network is an ambiguous experience. It is concerned with expectations of reciprocity which might be difficult to meet when having less to give in return, leaving low income parents as the weaker part in such relations and also shrouded with feelings of, and a sense of having to deal with, shame and potential stigmatisations. Those experiences seem in particular to be associated with economic help and the exchange of money. Since low income families have fewer opportunities to accumulate and thus pay back money, they tend to avoid this form of exchange or to limit such transactions to family relations. Even in those cases, receiving money becomes precarious. Thorød’s article offers knowledge about social problems going beyond the activation agenda, showing what she in the end terms ‘the voices of struggling families in a wealthy community’.

What this issue of Nordic Social Work Research shows is that economic productivity, participation on the labour market and the notion of activation constitute a dominating discourse not only in employment services but also with regard to other social services. However, other understandings and explanations of how and why people are outside the labour market are also possible. In order to develop such understandings, social work knowledge about social problems, equality and the consequences of inequality e.g. poverty, becomes important, to avoid an attribution of social problems to individual problems. Such knowledge is also important if Nordic welfare states are to sustain not only competitiveness, economic wealth and a high level of welfare for the majority inside the labour market, but also the welfare and social mechanisms underpinning solidarity with people who are outside the labour market or in other ways are excluded from the mainstream community. This is a kind of knowledge that is also connected with transnational and thus broader challenges in a globalised world of competition and insecurity (cf. Bauman 2001). As this issue’s book review made by Bruno of the book The Cultural Politics of European Prostitution Reform. Governing Loose Women (2016) by Greggor Mattson, indicates, concepts such as universality, solidarity and equality are not naturally included in research. One of the things at stake seems to be different cultural and political perceptions of ‘freedom’, and how this is translated into social policies and approaches with regard to what is considered a social problem. Obviously, if by some people freedom is viewed as tantamount to individual choice and vice versa, the kind of freedom enabled by solidarity and forms of regulation for the purpose of enabling equality and security easily becomes viewed as an unnecessary constraint (cf. Hagen 1999). However, one could also argue that such an approach to freedom tend to benefit people having more possibilities to choose, including the possibility to say ‘no’. It is a question, even within the Nordic context of welfare and social work, if this possibility is universal and equally distributed.

Maria Appel Nissen
[email protected] Eriksson
[email protected]