**4. Conclusions and recommendations**

Evaluations of the five Development Partnerships reveal that they have had considerable positive impact in delivering social welfare services and in shaping the local contexts in which they operate. They have:


The achievements of the partnerships profiled here bear out the arguments advanced by Turok (2011) that locally-oriented strategies with multi-stakeholder inputs contribute to the realisation of inclusive growth and more effective and dynamic interventions. Their experiences also support the recommendations put forward by Birch (2008) and by Noya and Clarence (2007) that the promotion of social enterprises advances the social inclusion agenda within communities and improves quality of life. Challenges persist for the partnerships in refining their organisational structures so as to enable maximum client group participation, and the generation of local social capital. They also need to pay attention to ensuring that in the mainstreaming of partnership they avoid what Crouch (2011; 301) describes as the "depart from universalism of the historical modern state, selecting privileged interlocutors from among the institutions in the territory."

Area-Based Partnerships and Social Welfare: Innovations and Challenges 113

Carnegie Commission (2010) *Final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Future of Civil* 

Commission of the European Communities (2000) *Communication from the Commission the* 

Cooke, P. (1996) *Networking for Competitive Advantage including Enterprise Support Policies in* 

Craig, S. & McKeown, K. (1994) *Progress Through Partnership – Final Evaluation Report on the* 

Crouch, C. (2011) Competitive Cities and Problems of Democracy, In *Handbook of Local and* 

Davoudi, S. (2005) Multi-level Governance and Territorial Cohesion, Presentation to SPAN

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (2004) *Mainstream Engagement,* 

Donnelly, M. (2004) EQUAL – the European Perspective, Presentation to Conference

Douglas, D.J.A. (1995) *Community Economic Development in Canada*, Volume Two, McGraw-

Douglas, D.J.A. (2005) The Restructuring of Local Government in Rural Regions: A Rural

Douglas, D.J.A. (2006) Rural Regional Development Planning - Governance and Other Challenges in the New E.U. *Studia Regionalia,* Vol. 18. pp. 112-132, ISSN 0860-3375 Douglas, D.J.A. (2010) *Rural Planning and Development in Canada*, Nelson, ISBN 978-0-17-

Douglas, D.J.A. & O'Keeffe, B. (2009) Rural Development and the Regional Construct: A

Esparcia, J.; Moseley, M. & Noruega, J. (2000) E*xploring Rural Development Partnerships in* 

Research Unit, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education. ESPON – European Spatial Planning Observation Network (2006) *Governance of Territorial* 

*and Urban Policies from EU to Local Level*, ESPON, Luxembourg

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Dublin

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Dublin

Dunfermline, Scotland

898724-05-9, Dublin

Poverty Agency, Dublin

SPAN, Dublin, October 2005.

0743-0167

650081-8, Toronto

894725-07-1 St. John's NL, Canada

European Commission, Brussels

Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-54831-1, London

Hill Ryerson Ltd., ISBN 0-07-551788-4, Ontario

*Society in the UK and Ireland,* Carnegie UK Trust, ISBN 978-0-900259-67-8,

*Member States establishing the guidelines for the Community Initiative EQUAL concerning transnational co-operation to promote new means of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market.* C(2000) 853,

*Dynamic European Regions,* NESC (National Economic and Social Council), ISBN 1-

*PESP Pilot Initiative on Long-term Unemployment*, ISBN 1-871643-36-8, Combat

*Regional Development*, Pike, A., Rodrígues-Pose and Tomaney, J. (Eds.) pp. 295-305,

(Strategic Planning Action Network) Conference, *Managing Space, Making Place.*

*Innovation for an EQUAL Labour Market*. The Helix Theatre, Dublin, 7th May 2004.

Development Perspective, *Journal of Rural Studies.* Vol. 21 (2005) pp. 231-246, ISSN

Comparative Analysis of the Newfoundland and Labrador and Ireland Contexts, In: *Remote Control – Governance Lessons from Small, Insular and Remote Regions,*  Baldacchino, G., Greenwood, R. and Felt, L. (eds.), pp. 77-113, ISER, ISBN 978-1-

*Europe – an Analysis of 330 Local Partnerships across eight EU Countries, ISBN 84-370- 4445-6,* UDERVAL Uiversidad de Valencia, *and* Countryside and Community

The Development Partnerships themselves stress their defining features, and they emphasise the merits of what they perceive as their client-centred, holistic and tailored set of interventions relative to the constrained approaches that characterise bureaucratic agencies. As one of their working documents states:

*"…we have developed another perspective. We promote an individual and holistic approach, which takes into account not only the personal problems presented, but also the structural or policy-related issues. Intensive one-to-one support has demonstrated that problems or difficulties initially considered personal to the participant are often far more complex … In working with participants in this fashion, it is crucial to communicate all barriers detected; structural as well as cultural, to relevant statutory agencies and organisations, so that they can become aware of the problem and take appropriate action in a co-ordinated fashion."* 

The experiences of the DPs have demonstrated the merits of providing social welfare supports that are locally based, delivered in collaboration with civil society, integrated into community development strategies, and which are characterised by flexibility and openness to innovation. Partnership has yielded considerable benefits for individuals in terms of improved access to employment, training and enhanced quality of life. It has revealed that in several cases, particularly among the long-term unemployed, failure to access employment or training had little to do with an individual's personal ability or disposition, and much to do with pre-existing and inflexible structures, procedures, schemes, practices, attitudes, prejudices and/ or policies that directly or indirectly prevent a willing individual from achieving self-development. The DPs' experiences demonstrate as McEwen (2011; 80) illustrates with respect to regional devolution of social welfare policy and functions, that multi-level government increases "the number of access points for pro-welfare advocates, not just to defend existing social programmes but to get new policy ideas on the agenda and to facilitate social policy innovation." They underscore the advantages of neo-endogenous collaboration over single agency delivery and provide a model for the roll-out and advancement of social welfare in increasingly straitened times.

#### **5. References**


The Development Partnerships themselves stress their defining features, and they emphasise the merits of what they perceive as their client-centred, holistic and tailored set of interventions relative to the constrained approaches that characterise bureaucratic agencies.

*"…we have developed another perspective. We promote an individual and holistic approach, which takes into account not only the personal problems presented, but also the structural or policy-related issues. Intensive one-to-one support has demonstrated that problems or difficulties initially considered personal to the participant are often far more complex … In working with participants in this fashion, it is crucial to communicate all barriers detected; structural as well as cultural, to relevant statutory agencies and organisations, so that they can become aware of* 

The experiences of the DPs have demonstrated the merits of providing social welfare supports that are locally based, delivered in collaboration with civil society, integrated into community development strategies, and which are characterised by flexibility and openness to innovation. Partnership has yielded considerable benefits for individuals in terms of improved access to employment, training and enhanced quality of life. It has revealed that in several cases, particularly among the long-term unemployed, failure to access employment or training had little to do with an individual's personal ability or disposition, and much to do with pre-existing and inflexible structures, procedures, schemes, practices, attitudes, prejudices and/ or policies that directly or indirectly prevent a willing individual from achieving self-development. The DPs' experiences demonstrate as McEwen (2011; 80) illustrates with respect to regional devolution of social welfare policy and functions, that multi-level government increases "the number of access points for pro-welfare advocates, not just to defend existing social programmes but to get new policy ideas on the agenda and to facilitate social policy innovation." They underscore the advantages of neo-endogenous collaboration over single agency delivery and provide a model for the roll-out and

Adshead, M. (2006) New Modes of Governance and the Irish Case: Finding Evidence for

AEIDL LEADER European Observatory (1999c) *Territorial Competitiveness – Creating a* 

Bennett, R.J. & Krebs, G. (1991) *Local Economic Development Public-Private Partnership* 

Birch, K. (2008) Social Entrepreneurship – the Way to Sustainable Regional Development?

Briscoe, R & Ward, M. (Eds.) (2005) *Helping Ourselves – Success Stories in Co-operative Business and Social Enterprise,* Oak Tree Press, ISBN 978-1860762840, Cork, Ireland

*Initiatives in Britain and Germany,* Belhaven Press, ISBN London

Explanations of Social Partnership. *The Economic and Social Review,* Vol. 37, No. 3,

*Territorial Development Strategy in the Light of the LEADER Experience,* LEADER

In: *Sustainable Regions: Making Regions Work,* Hardy, S., Bibby Larsen, L. and Freeland F. (Eds.), pp. 65-67, Regional Studies Association, ISBN 1-897721-28-5,

*the problem and take appropriate action in a co-ordinated fashion."* 

advancement of social welfare in increasingly straitened times.

Winter, 2006, pp. 319–342, ISSN 0012-9984

European Observatory, Brussels

Seaford, UK

**5. References**

As one of their working documents states:


Area-Based Partnerships and Social Welfare: Innovations and Challenges 115

Moseley, M.J. (2003) *Local Partnerships for Rural Development – the European Experience*, CABI,

Nardone, G.; Sisto, R. & Lopolito, A. (2010) Social Capital in the LEADER Initiative: a

NESC - National Economic and Social Council (2005) *The Developmental Welfare State*, National Economic and Social Council, ISBN 0-7557-7079-X, Dublin Nicholls, W. J. (2005) Power and Governance: Metropolitan Governance in France. *Urban* 

Noya, A. (2009) *The Changing Boundaries of Social Enterprises,* OECD Publications, ISBN 978-

Noya, A. & Clarence, E. (Eds.) (2007) *The Social Economy – Building Inclusive Economies,*

Ó Brion, D. (2009) Institutionalising Social Partnership, In *Power, Dissent and Democracy –* 

OECD; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1999) *Cultivating Rural* 

OECD; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2001) *Local Partnerships for Better Governance,* OECD Publications, ISBN 9789264185883, Paris OECD; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2005) *Culture and Local* 

OECD; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2005b) *Building* 

O'Keeffe, B. (2009) Regional and Local Devolution in Ireland – the Potential of LEADER

O'Keeffe, B. & Douglas, D.J.A. (2009) Rural Development in Newfoundland and Labrador

Pike, A.; Rodrígues-Pose, A. & Tomaney, J. (2011) *Handbook of Local and Regional Development*.

Phillips, M. (1998) Social Perspectives In: *The Geography of Rural Change*, Ilbery, B. (Ed.) pp.

Pobal (2001) *Services for the Unemployed: A Model of Good Practice - Employment Information and* 

*Development,* OECD Publications, ISBN 9789264009905, Paris

*Civil Society and the State in Ireland,* Ó Brion, D. and Kirby, P. (Eds.) pp. 111-125,

*Amenities – An Economic Development Perspective,* OECD Publications, ISBN

*Competitive Regions – Strategies and Governance,* OECD Publications, ISBN

Partnerships to Provide Municipal Government. *Lex Localis* 7 (3) pp. 257-282, ISSN

and Ireland: Governance and its Prospects and Potentials, In: *Remote Control – Governance Lessons from Small, Insular and Remote Regions,* Baldacchino, G., Greenwood, R. and Felt, L. (Eds.) pp. 237-258, ISER, ISBN 978-1-894725-07-1 St.

Belgium

0167

ISBN 0-85199-657-4, Oxon, UK

92-64-05526-1, Paris

9789264170605, Paris

9789264009462, Paris

John's NL, Canada

*Guidance,* Pobal, Dublin

Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-54831-1, London

31-54, Longman, ISBN 978-0582277243, Essex, UK

1581-5374

*Studies* 42, (4), pp. 783 – 800, ISSN 0042-0980

Framar, ISBN 9781906353094, Dublin

OECD Publications, ISBN 978-92-61-03987-2, Paris

91-7261-222-8, Publication produced by Region Västa Götland in collaboration with Stockholms läns landsting, Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting and Region Skane. Meldon, J.; Kenny, M. & Walsh, J. (2002) Local Government, Local Development and Citizen

Participation: Lessons from Ireland, In: *Local Government, Local Development and Citizen Participation,* Decoster, D.P. (Ed.) Université Libre de Bruxelles, Charleroi,

Methodological Approach, *Journal of Rural Studies 26* (2010) pp. 63–72, ISSN 0743-


European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2005)

Forde, C. (2005) "Participatory Democracy or Pseudo-Participation? Local Government Reform in Ireland" *Local Government Studies*, 31(2) 137-148, ISSN 0300-3930 Furmankiewicz, M, Thompson, N. and Zielinska, M. (2010) Area-based Partnerships in

Geoghegan, M & Powell, F. (2009) Community development, the Irish state and the

Härkönen, E. & Kahila, P. (1999) Some Theories of Rural Development – a Basis for

Herrschel, T. and Tallberg, P. (Eds.) (2011) *The Role of Regions? Networks, Scale, Territory*,

Hughes, J.; Knox, C.; Murray, M. & Greer, J. (1998) *Partnership Governance in Northern Ireland;* 

Humphreys, E. & Dineen, D. (2006) *Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City and Environs.*

Kitson, M.; Martin, R. & Tyler, P. (2004) Regional Competitiveness: An Elusive, Yet Key

Kooiman, J. (1993) Governance and Governability: Using Complexity, Dynamics and

Lockie, S.; Lawrence, G. & Cheshire, L. (2006) Reconfiguring Rural Resource Governance:

Malecki, E.J. (1997) *Technology and Economic Development: the Dynamics of Local, Regional and* 

Márquez-Domínguez, J.A. (2009) *Aportaciones Internacionales para el Entrenamiento del Desarrollo Local.* Universidad de Huelva, ISBN 978-8492-679256, Spain Marsden, T.; Murdoch, J.; Lowe, P.; Munton, R. & Flynn, A. (1993) *Restructuring Rural Areas 1 – Constructing the Countryside*, ISBN 1-85728-039-3, University College London. Mazzonis, D (1997) The Experience of Emilia-Romagna, In: *Competitiveness, Innovation and* 

Regional Studies Association (Irish Branch), ISBN 0-9511047-8-0, Dublin McEwen, M (2011) Regional Government and the Welfare State In: *The Role of Regions?* 

Diversity, In: *Modern Governance: New Government – Society Interactions,* Kooiman, J.

The Legacy of Neo-Liberalism in Australia, In *Handbook of Rural Studies*, Cloke, P., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P.H. (Eds.) pp. 29-43, Sage, ISBN 978-0761973324,

*National Competitiveness,* Addison Wesley, Longman, ISBN 978-0582277236, London

*Regional Development in Ireland.* McCafferty, D. and Walsh, J.A. (Eds.)*,* pp. 41-46,

*Networks, Scale, Territory*, Herrschel, T. and Tallberg, P. (Eds.) pp. 73-84, ISBN 978-

*The Path to Peace,* Oak Tree Press, ISBN 1- 86076-104-6, Dublin

Concept? *Regional Studies* 38(9) pp. 991-999, ISSN 04/090991-09

(Ed), pp. 35-50, Sage, ISBN 0-8039-8890-7, London

62, ISSN 0743-0167

9781906353094, Dublin

Higher Education, UK.

and Region Skane.

London

and Boston

University of Limerick.

*Regional Social Capital in Europe,* European Foundation, ISBN 92-897-0910-3, Dublin

Rural Poland: The Post-Accession Experience. *Journal of Rural Studies* 26 (2010) 52–

Contested Meaning of Civil Society, In: *Power, Dissent and Democracy – Civil Society and the State in Ireland,* Ó Brion, D. and Kirby, P. (Eds.) pp. 95-110*,* Framar, ISBN

Examining Local Partnerships, In: *Local Partnerships and Rural Development in Europe - a literature review of practice and theory*, Westholm, E., Moseley, M., and Stenlås, N. (Eds.), ISBN 91-88790-62-2, Dalarna Research Institute, Sweden in association with Countryside & Community Research Unit, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of

ISBN 978-91-7261-222-8 Publication produced by Region Västa Götland in collaboration with Stockholms läns landsting, Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting 91-7261-222-8, Publication produced by Region Västa Götland in collaboration with Stockholms läns landsting, Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting and Region Skane.


**5** 

**Look to Norway** 

*Lillehammer University College,* 

Dag Leonardsen

*Norway* 

**– A Sobering Challenge to a Success Story** 

For several years, the United Nations has ranked Norway as having the highest standard of living in the world. This position is the result of a complex mix of 'politics of solidarity' (redistribution of resources), 'professional administration' (efficient, loyal and competent bureaucracy), and 'good luck (oil resources since the 1970s). A comparatively large degree of economic equality, not least safeguarded through a compulsory and generous insurance system (the National Insurance Scheme), has contributed to giving Norway a reputation as

There is hardly any disagreement about the characterisation of *all* the Scandinavian welfare states as success stories, at least if one agrees on the overarching aim of income equality and even distribution of wealth (Barth et al., 2003). However, the recipe for success in a period of relative scarcity is not necessarily the recipe for success in times of affluence. Or to be more specific: The recipe for success when people have a 'lack of money' is not necessarily the correct recipe if the pressing problem is 'lack of meaning'. While the first type of problem can be attacked by stimulating economic growth, this is at best only partly true for the second type of problem. The research topic I want to bring into focus in this article is the (general) dilemma related to politicians using yesterday's problems and especially, *yesterday's way of understanding these problems,* to attack today's problems. My frame of reference is the Norwegian welfare state. I ask to what extent the traditional welfare approach (as seen in all of the Scandinavian countries) is able to grasp the essence of modern social problems. Not disregarding the importance of safeguarding people's economic basis, and not disregarding the strong efforts that have been taken to prevent social problems to arise, I want to argue that the 'technocratic' and 'administrativemanagerial' approach to welfare politics need to be supplemented with a more 'sociological' approach, where the challenge of 'lack of meaning' is given closer and more serious attention. Even though the awareness of such a perspective has been present – at least at the rhetorical level - since the 1970s, the significant operational implications of such recognition have been more difficult to identify. By raising the discussion on problem identification ('what is the *real* problem?') I do not want to challenge the celebration of the Scandinavian welfare state model as a project of success, but I ask what type of challenges we are confronted with if ideals about social inclusion, social solidarity, and the quest for living a respectful life, are given due attention. In this regard I am not talking about technical

**1. Introduction** 

the prototype of a successful Keynesian welfare state.

