Content uploaded by Evelien Tonkens
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Evelien Tonkens on Jan 20, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
preprint version
prof. dr. E.H.Tonkens, University of Amsterdam
e.h.tonkens@uva.nl
drs. M.A. Hoijtink, Hogeschool van Amsterdam
m.a.hoijtink@hva.nl
drs. H. Gulikers, Hogeschool van Arnhem en Nijmegen
huub.gulikers@han
Democratizing social work: from New Public Management to democratic
professionalism
Introduction
In this chapter we analyse the consequences of the implementation of NPM-inspired
instruments, especially performance accountability, on the relationship between
professionals and people who need social care or social support. NPM promised to
democratize professional practices, among them social work: it promised to take
citizens seriously: they should be listened to and to have influence on what social
workers offer. Although this democratic promise covers not all of what NPM
promised, it is a crucial element in the embrace of NPM in the field of social work.
The promise of performance accountability is that “performance information is not
merely managerial useful, but also contributes to the quality of democratic debate
and to the ability of citizens to make choices.” (Pollitt 2006, p. 52)
The critique on social work as undemocratic practice preceded the rise of
NPM. It was uttered fervently from the mid-1970s onwards and can be summarized
in four points: social work was disempowering, paternalistic, self-centred, and
unaccountable. NPM was put forward as more democratic practice, giving citizens
empowering voice and choice, to serve their demands and to be accountable. The
core question of this article is to what extent NPM manages to fulfil this democratic
promise in social work. Our empirical data are derived from interviews with Dutch
social workers and social work managers. The Netherlands is an interesting case, as
we will argue, because the attack on social work from the 1970s onwards was
particularly harsh, while the entitlements of citizens concerning these services have
been relatively weak, compared to entitlements in health and social care (Duyvendak
and Tonkens 2003).
We will first have a closer look at these criticisms and argue why they can be
understood as attacks on the undemocratic features of social work. Then we will
discuss how and why NPM was offered as a more democratic alternative. Our own
empirical research work will be used to analyse how this promise works out in
practice in local social work in the Netherlands. Our study is linked to the first of the
‘candidate contradictions’ that Pollitt and Bouckaert (2004, 165 – 167) put forward:
how is it possible that NPM simultaneously empowers consumers, frees managers
and strengthens political control. “In a perfect world the three objectives might be
compatible. In the real world public managers usually find themselves facing trade-
offs or even downright contradictions.” (ibid, p.167). We will argue that in most
respects, NPM tends to strengthen political control and in doing so undermines rather
than promotes democracy in social work.
We will go on to discuss the notion of democratic professionalism (Dzur, 2004,
2008) as a way of giving citizens more voice, direct professional accountability
towards citizens and move accountability from output measurement towards
democratic practice. The notion of ‘democratic professionalism’ is still a rather vague
notion but we will try to give it some more flesh and blood on the basis or our
empirical data of experiences with NPM in social work.
As opposed to various other articles in this volume (Van der Krogt and Hupe, Van
der Veen), our focus is not on a possible decline in professional autonomy, as we do
not consider professional autonomy as such as something to be cherished.
Professional autonomy has been successfully and rightly attacked in the 1970s as
paternalistic and undemocratic, and we want to take it from there: since then, efforts
have been made to democratize professional practices, and NPM can be understood
as one way of doing so.
Criticism of social work
We focus on the criticism of NPM of public services as undemocratic, although we
are conscious of the fact that this term as such is not much used in NPM and that
NPM covers a broader range of issues concerning public sector management than its
democratic character. In the 1990s NPM built on this criticism, applying it to
‘bureaucracy’ more generally. NPM- theorists were not particularly interested in
social work but merely in the public sector more generally. NPM-theorists fuelled their
attack more broadly towards non-marketized, state-related ‘bureaucracy’. Pollitt
(2003) identified eight elements of NPM that are generally recognised: a shift of focus
from input to output, a shift towards measurement and quantification, a preference for
flat organizational forms, a preference for contracts instead of hierarchical relations, a
wider use of market mechanisms, an emphasis on service quality and consumer
orientation, a blurring of the frontiers between public, private and voluntary sectors,
and a shift from equity and universalism towards efficiency and individualism (Pollitt
2003, p. 27-8). By democratization we do not point to strengthening democratic
boards or democratic procedures, but to giving more voice and choice and thereby
power to citizens. The first six elements of the eight that Pollitt identifies as together
forming NPM, can be understood as also meant to amount to democratisation in this
sense, even though they are combined with other aims beyond the scope of this
article, such as lowering costs, improving efficiency and raising quality.
NPM can be argued to build on earlier criticism on the lack of democracy in
the public sector, including social work, that already arose in many western welfare
states during the 1970s. We will have a closer look at this critique of social work
being undemocratic in four respects: as disempowering, self-centred, paternalistic
and unaccountable.
First, during the late 1970 the empowering presumptions of social work were
under attack. It was argued that the growth of social work was uncontrolled and did
not match the needs of citizens but an expression of autonomous policy
developments regardless of the needs of citizens. It was also argued that social work
failed to empower people and merely deepened their independence (Clarke and
Newman 1997, Duyvendak and Tonkens 2003).
During the 1990s, NPM built on this rhetoric. NPM was introduced in the mid nineties
in the public sector, in many Western welfare states. NPM started off as a criticism of
government but was soon more broadly applied to bureaucratic ways of governing in
public sector organisations. In their bestselling book Reinventing government
Osborne and Gaebler echoed the criticism of disempowerment: government was
blamed for keeping ‘clients’ of government passive and deny them choice (Osborne
and Gaebler 1992, p. 169). Bureaucratic state institutions were considered sluggish
because of their hierarchical chains of command, and their preoccupation with rules
and regulations (Peters and Waterman 1982, Osborne and Gaebler 1992). The
government is out of date as a dinosaur and slow as a snail, and thus not at all
responsive to the needs of its clients, Osborne and Gaebler argued.
Secondly, during the 1970s, social work was also criticized for being self-
centred: social workers were accused of being more occupied with themselves than
with citizens (Tonkens and Van Doorn 2001). Sociologists criticised social work for
lack of accountability: they were attacked for not serving the needs and demands of
citizens but merely being occupied with their own needs, wasting time with endless
meetings and not achieving much. If social work wanted to be meaningful at all, it
should organise activities that citizens asked for. Professionals were blamed for
being solely motivated by self-interest (Clarke and Newman 1997). Sehested (2002,
p. 1516) describes how in Denmark professionals in public organisations were seen
as motivated by self-interest and as only fighting for more resources to increase their
own status and prestige. NPM developed this criticism further, by criticising the lack
of accountability of government and the public sector more broadly (Du Gay 2000)
A third 1970s criticism on social work partly contradicted the second: it was argued
that social work was but paternalistic and patronizing (Duyvendak and Tonkens
2003); a criticism that also struck other social professionals such as medical doctors
and psychiatrists (Tonkens and Weijers 1999). Not self-centred this time, but rather
other-oriented, be it in a problematic manner. Social workers would be ‘exercising
power over would-be customers, denying choice, through the dubious claim that
“professionals know best” and ‘undermining personal responsibility’ (Clarke and
Newman 1997, p. 15). Of all social professions, this criticism hit social work hardest,
because more than e.g. nurses, doctors or teachers, social workers claimed to
empower and liberate citizens. Therefore social workers were most seriously struck
and silenced by this criticism. Social workers were blamed for having ideas of welfare
and wellbeing that have very little relation with the ideas of citizens themselves. The
government had imposed social work onto its citizens, it was argued. Social workers
were criticized for being authoritarian specialists who came to authoritative
judgements on the basis of their expertise without tolerating participation nor dispute
(Duyvendak and Tonkens 2003). Again, this was taken up by NPM, arguing against
the self-centredness of the state and the public sector more generally (Du Gay 2000,
Osborne and Gaebler 1992).
Fourthly, the 1970s’ critique of social work dismissed its goals as too vague
and thus unaccountable to democratic control; it was not clear what social work
amounted to. Social workers were ‘the new exempted’ whose work escaped
accountability and control (Jordan and Jordan 2000, Tonkens and Van Doorn 2001),
a critique again taken up and generalized by NPM (Power 1997, Marquand 2004).
The criticisms summarized above were not responded by a self-assured
defence from the side of social work – neither during the 1970s nor during the 1980s.
On the contrary, social workers were baffled, as this criticism hit the core of their
work: empowerment was their main reason for existence. The criticism of social work
professionals helped to legitimate budget-cuts during the 190s and early 1990s and
these in turn further weakened and silenced the sector (Marquand 2004).
NPM’s democratic promise
NPM offered an alternative to these criticisms by a fourfold promise. The new public
sector (including of course social work) would provide service, choice and voice to
citizens, mainly in their role as consumers. The idea was to ‘launch a customer
revolution’ (Peters, 1987) ‘which involved turning organisations and management
assumptions upside down.’ (Clarke and Newman 1997, p.107)
To combat disempowerment, NPM promised to empower citizens as clients
who would have the power to choose and thus also to dismiss organisations. Just
like customers on the market, citizens would have exit options. If a service did not
satisfy their needs, they should be able to turn their backs and go somewhere else.
To combat self-centredness, citizens were redefined as consumers whose wants and
needs are to be served. Their demand would force social workers to become client
centred and deliver what citizens ask. Demand steering gained popularity in social
work in many Western welfare states from the mid 1990s onwards (Clarke and
Newman 1997, Rodger 2000, Marquand 2004), including the Netherlands
(Duyvendak and Tonkens 2003, Tonkens and van Doorn 2001).
As alternative for paternalism, NPM promised to refrain form judgement and
simply deliver what was asked (Marquand 2001, Jordan and Jordan 2000). To serve
rather than patronize, with a smile rather than a sermon. Social workers would be
positioned in a serving, client-dependent manner, so that clients’ needs, complaints
and desires could never again be dismissed: those who would bully clients, would
loose their contracts. Clients were setting the rules now by way of ‘demand steering’
Pollitt 2003).
Thirdly, NPM also promised citizens voice-options. Performance measurement
would give citizens both exit and voice options. Performance measurement would
provide citizens the necessary information to see for themselves that a service was
failing, and if so, to leave. Indirectly, performance measurement would empower
citizens and give them the information to choose between providers (Power 1999).
Fourthly, to make social workers accountable, accountability-mechanisms,
such as standards, targets and performance measurements were set up. The efforts
moved from input and processes towards output and outcome (Power 1999, Jordan
and Jordan 2000). There was also a ‘shift towards measurement and quantification,
especially in the form of systems of “performance indicators” and/or explicit
“standards” (Pollitt 2003, p. 27). In order to be accountable by external parties,
public service organisations should formulate their results in terms of measurable
outcomes, understandable to non-experts. Clearer targets and better performance
measures would make it easier for politicians to judge if public sector organisations
were achieving what they are aiming at (Pollitt 2003).
In sum NPM promised democratisation by strengthening choice, service
orientation, voice and accountability. We now turn to our empirical data to see how
these promises turn out in the daily practices of Dutch local social work today.
NPM in practice of Dutch local social work
Our empirical research was carried out in seven welfare organisations responsible for
social work in The Netherlands. The Netherlands presents an interesting case,
because the criticism on social work hit social work particularly hard during the leate
1960s and early 1070s, as part of the comparatively successful attack on
authoritarian practices during that era in this country. As the American-Dutch
historian Kennedy noted, the reigning elite was very receptive to the critique by on
authorities as it fitted a self-critique that was already (partly latently) present
(Kennedy 1995). Today, NPM is firmly rooted in the Dutch welfare sector, with
practices such as contracting out and performance measurement. Welfare
organisations are responsible for social work, under authority of local government.
Devolution of social work to local government started in the 1980s and was
strengthened by a new law, the WMO (‘Social Support Act’), introduced in 2007.
We analysed reports from individual organisations, their umbrella- organisations
branche and local and central government. We also conducted in-depth interviews
with social workers, youth workers, social cultural workers, community workers (total
57), middle and general managers (13), and citizens who work as volunteers (5)
between November 2006 and November 2008. In the interviews we discussed their
experiences with and views on accountability and client participation in social work.
In three organisations we followed efforts to mould performance information to better
fit democratic purposes: to reform performance information in such a way that it
would be a more informative tool for discussing results with colleagues. What did
NPM actually mean for democratization of social work of these organisations? We
again discern three themes in which this democratic turn was expected: service,
voice and choice.
Service-orientation
NPM’s promise to be more service-oriented by modelling welfare organisations after
modern business and positioning citizens as consumers, was mirrored in policy
documents of organisations and central and local government.
In Dutch local social work a major rhetorical shift took place in the 1990s towards
service orientation and demand steering and demand orientation (Kremer and
Tonkens 2006). Services were redefined in terms of ‘products’, clients were redefined
as ‘consumers’, the name of the umbrella- organisation of welfare organisations
changed into ‘Social Entrepeneurs Group’.
On the level of welfare organisations however, this shift never really took
place. Citizens’ demands did not come into view at all. Local governments act in their
name. Under the influence of NPM rhetoric local governments now contract social
services on behalf of clients. As a consequence, welfare organisations do not adapt
their services to the demands of clients, but merely at the demands of local
governments. Rather than demand steering we witness government steering.
Paternalism is not replaced, but the actor has changed: now the main source of
paternalism is government rather than professionals.
As to demand orientation (of professionals, on the individual level), a more
ambiguous picture arises. Our respondents argue that they operate in a service and
demand oriented manner. NPM in a way did stimulate a more attentive attitude to the
voices and needs of individual clients, as other research shows as well (Van der
Steege en Van Deur, 2002). Social workers are more active in figuring out, together
with clients, which help and activities they need.
However, it must be stressed that social workers reject the notion of citizens
as consumers, and even reject the idea of serving their demands. This, they argue,
underestimates the peculiarities of social work. It denies the vulnerability and
dependence of a lot of clients who turn to social work for help. They often fail to have
clearly defined demands; they merely have problems and needs. Even if they have
demands, social workers consider it part of their professionalism to also make their
own judgements. A social worker:
“Sometimes someone may say I think you should do this or that, for that’s my
question, but I also have thoughts of my own. And if I think, based on my
expertise of and experiences with the problem, that something else should be
done, I bring it up. OK, then you have to explain why. Precisely because
people come to you in a dependent situation. And these people are often
vulnerable. People simply have problems; otherwise they would have stayed
at home.” (social worker, 16-04-2007)
Welfare clients should also be invited, activated, cared for, corrected or educated,
rather than served only. The market discourse of services, products, customers and
consumers does not recognize this, social workers claim.
Voice
NPM does reduce social workers’ possibilities for voice, but again, it does not give
them to citizens but to local governments. Local government contracts welfare
organisations, and evaluates the performance of social work organizations (De Boer
en Duyvendak, 2004). One could argue that citizens do get more voice in this
manner, but in an indirect, democratic manner: as voters and tax payers, represented
by the local politicians and the government. Social workers complain that local
government cannot represent citizens voices as it is much too detached from and
unfamiliar with social work practice. They feel disempowered. A youth worker:
“The increased power of local government is frustrating. You have to deliver
this and that, but they don’t know what they are talking about. But you can’t
ignore them anymore because they may in response contract another
organisation. (…) So sometimes you feel as powerless as the youngster for
whom I’m working. (…) so sometime you wondering, for whom I’m working?”
.(youth worker, 26-03-07)
This strengthened voice of local government not only disempowers social workers,
but also citizens who receive their support, social workers and managers argue. A
middle manager:
“This new Law with the tendering (..) this is anonymous, isn’t? Well, it’s really
terrible. Today, the top of the organization is only interested in what the local
government wants. If we receive signs from clients about demands and
problems they experience and we want to formulate a policy in response,
there is no space and time. But if a policymaker of the local government has
an idea, we have to implement it tomorrow, regardless whether it is a good or
bad idea”. (middle manager, 10-01-2007)
Citizens as service users should not only be represented by local government but
also by client councils. Welfare organisations are obligated to install such councils
since the new law (WMO) was introduced, in January 2007. However, none of the
organizations involved in our research has a client council. This is no coincidence;
client councils in local social work are rare (Tonkens 2010). Considering the
traditional mission of social work to empower citizens, it is striking that they keep
users silenced concerning their own policy.
One of the explanations of this intriguing contrast lies in the position of welfare
organisations. Welfare organisations are afraid to be squeezed between the
demands of the empowered local government and the demands of client, would there
be a clients’ council. A middle manager:
“Local government wants us to provide a front office where citizens can drop
by all day and pose questions. That’s consumer friendly, indeed. But we can
only organize this with the front office employees who are cheaper than social
workers. But clients want to talk directly with social workers. So in these times
as social work organization you sometimes really feel you’re being squeezed.
And if we had a client council, what will it say about it? I mean, can we say
something about it ourselves?”. (middle manager, 26-3-07)
The same feelings of powerlessness we observed at the executive level:
“I have to reach a certain amount of customers according to the performance
indicators that management arranges with the local government and I have to
work in line with some standards procedures. Well, to be honest, that’s more
than enough; I don’t want another party which stands far away from my work
to tell me what I should do”.
(social worker, 10-1-07)
A few middle managers have a different view on clients’ councils. They do see client
councils as potential allies who can be useful in countervailing the increased power
of the local government:
“The customer-user should take the floor and local government and the top of
this organisation should take a big step backwards. So it wouldn’t be wrong to
have some kind of client council that can provide some counterbalance”.
(middle manager, 24-01-2007).
Another way users can make their voices heard concerning the way they are treated
by professionals is by sending in complaints. Complaint procedures have been
introduced over in social work over the last years. However, they are rarely used, as
clients feel too vulnerable and dependent on social workers, different respondents
explain.
Yet another tool to strengthen the voices of citizens is the introduction of
quality management systems to catch the ‘perspective of the customer’. When such
a system meets certain criteria, an organisation gets a certificate, like the HKZ
(Harmonisatie Kwaliteitsbeoordeling in de Zorgsector: Harmonizing Quality
assurance in the care domain), that should guarantee quality. In Dutch local social
work (as well as in health and social care) the HKZ certificate is introduced on a large
scale. HKZ is an extensive system that covers many aspects of quality, such as what
should be registered, at which moments the service has to be evaluated, etc. The
aim of HKZ is ‘to stimulate working on quality from the perspective of the consumer’
(website visited 10-11-08). One of the aspects of HKZ that according to respondents
are supposed to strengthen citizens’ voices are the obligatory evaluations that clients
give of the support of social workers they have received. Social workers welcome
these standards as contribution to working in a professional manner. Inviting
feedback from clients and taking action on the basis of this feedback is part and
parcel of a professional attitude:
“It is a good development that after four meetings, you explicitly have to give
people space to talk about how they experience the support. Of course you
often try to figure that out anyway, but I think this break makes you more
aware of it and you can learn and discuss another strategy if the client has the
feeling your support doesn’t work. And of course always fine to hear what
you’re doing well”.
(social worker, 21-3-2007)
What they consider to be meaningful are separate evaluation reports by clients. It
gives them the opportunity to reflect and discuss on their professional methods the
use in their work and to learn (see also Hoijtink and Oude Vrielink 2007. However,
these reports barely play a role in professional accountability. The main reason for
this seems to be a lack of managerial staff. While there is an ongoing debate in the
Netherlands about the abundance of managers in the public sector, at the expense of
professionals as street level bureaucrats or front line workers, in practice social work
seem to suffer from a lack of managers, according to some social workers and
managers we interviewed. Wiendels et al (2004) compared the staff of social work
organizations with other organizations in the public sector and concluded that the
staff is smaller in the social work organizations. Social work lacks the managerial
capacity to meet the contradictory terms that welfare organisations are faced with, as
Huijben et all also found (2003). As a consequence, meaningful accountability in
which such evaluations would be discussed is not organised. Secondly, managers
tend to be overwhelmed by external demands, particularly from local government
However, more important than any formal system, social workers argue, are
daily informal ways of strengthening citizens’ voices. Social workers report to put a lot
of effort in giving clients a voice in the support they receive and the activities they
organise. Social workers argue that seriously taking the voice of clients into account
is at the heart of delivering ‘quality’:
“You always do it together, you and your client. (…) It is a process in which
both of you participate. I am not the only one who defines what the problem is;
your client has thoughts about this as well. And very good ones, because he is
the one who experiences the problems. Not every client enters the room
saying: “I’d like to talk about this problem”. Some people have a whole bunch
of problems. In that case you help them to summarise and to get things
straight. And then you ask: “what is your most urgent problem?” So it is always
interaction; you and your clients collaborate closely to help them overcome
their problems. That is a joint responsibility”. (social worker, 16-04-2007).
Social workers, community workers, social cultural workers and youth workers report
they are continually fine-tuning: exploring how clients and client groups experience
their analyses, interventions, aid and assistance, and figure out if anything should be
omitted, adapted, supplemented, or changed. To this end, clients and client groups
are continuously invited, challenged and tempted to voice their experiences:
“Many migrant women who come to the women’s centre in the neighbourhood
are not assertive. They have never learned to open their mouths. They will not
participate in a client council, no way. They neither tell me that they don’t like
an activity nor tell they prefer other courses. As a socio-cultural worker you
have to sense this, ask between the lines, with a cup of tea. You have to fish
for it. What do they think about the course, what do they need? That is how we
started cycling lessons for migrant women here.”
(socio cultural workers, 22-01-2007).
Summing up, we can conclude that NPM strengthens rather the voice of local
government than the voice of citizens as service users. However, there is also an
undertow of informal communication, which silently strengthens citizens’ voices. As
none of this is documented so it cannot be proved to outsiders. The same counts for
the voice of clients at the organisation level. Professionals discuss experiences from
clients with policy reforms with their managers and if this gives rise to adjustments,
they will try to convince managers and together seek to incorporate the voice of
clients (Duyvendak, Hoijtink and Tonkens, 2009).
Choice
NPM- instruments as contractualisation and competition in order to provide more
choice are key elements in the new Dutch law, the Wmo. But again: for whom?
Choice was indeed introduced, but only for local government as representative of
citizens, not for individual citizens directly. Choice is made by a spokesperson; the
local government that acts in their name. Citizens who receive support of local social
work cannot choose. Their home address determines which organisation they should
turn to in order to receive support. In health and social care citizens gained consumer
power by way of personal budgets, but this never happened in local social work.
Organisations now have to compete with each other in order to gain contracts and
this has directed the attention from management towards local governments and the
performance indicators they set. Social workers complain that what counts is not
quality of their work, but the performance indicators set up by local government. For
example, some youth workers complain what counts are the amount of youngsters
they reach, while there is ample attention in the organizations for professionalization
and the needs from youngsters themselves.
Accountability
The fourth issue in democratization of social work by way of NPM was to make local
social work more accountable. This democratic promise was the main reason why
accountability became so popular in social work. Around the turn of the century,
social workers and their managers had high expectations of accountability: they
hoped that accountability systems would help to prove that their work was valuable.
This would put an end to the persistent suggestion that their work was unprofessional
and futile (Tonkens and Van Doorn 2001).
These hopes were not fulfilled at all, our research shows. On the contrary,
social workers and their managers experienced accountability systems as a
disillusion. Social workers argue that reports that count are meaningless:
not only the evaluations already mentioned but also numerous registrations of work
processes, such as the amount of telephone calls, the activities they perform per
fifteen minutes. Social workers and their managers experience these as
meaningless:
“I often discussed with my manager why we have to deliver such information. I
asked: why on earth is our financier interested in how much telephone acts I
have performed in a particular client contact? Or why should I register it
because of these quality standards? It has nothing to do with quality, you
know. My manager agrees, but she argues we need a certification, because
the financier demands this and there are also good standards. Okay, I’ll do it,
but don’t to me come with complains I see not enough clients, because then I
will be angry”. (Social worker, 21-3-2007)
“In a sense the local government has no idea what is really going on behind
the output figures, the amount of customers reached, customers trajectories
that are finished or all those tables with numbers of short contacts. But it has
become important, because we make performance agreements, set output
goals in this way and are accountable for it. So we have to deliver periodically
thick rapports full of those tables. But we try to pimp it up with stories and
words in order to get it alive because in a sense its, well, you want a feeling
it’s useful, it make sense”. (middle manager, 20-12-06)
Some workers argued that registrations were made to match the performance criteria
and registrations are also manipulated to meet standards performance agreements
while at the same time upholding professional values. In order to deal with
unintended effects - sometimes with the support of their managers – social workers
develop different kind of strategies to meet both the demands and needs of their
clients and the accountability demands of the local government. They e.g. manipulate
registration:
“Some clients take so much time because they have so many problems on
different domains, relation, work, debts. Well, for each single demand you
create than a new dossier so it counts for two or three, you get it? You have to
be a little bit, I call that creative”.
(social worker, 10-01-2007)
Even without manipulation, this performance measurement does not mirror the
results of social work. Both social workers and managers argue they want to be held
more accountable for the results of their work. Neither service users nor partner
organisations play any role in public accountability.
“In daily practice the reports we periodically produce aches only reach one
policy officer from the local government”. (general manager, 14-10-2006)
Research indicates that local governments do not use all this information much. “It
seems reasonable to conclude that most aldermen do not consider output-oriented
performance information available in the planning and control documents of their
organisations very informative and that they use it only infrequently.” (Bogt, 2006:
241). Politicians gain information mainly by talking to senior officials, other politicians
and other influential people – not by reading reports. (Pollitt 2006)
In short, accountability does bring transparency and democracy, but only in
relation to local government and also in a problematic way; it seems not only to
create new vagueness, but also fuelling time consuming bureaucracy at the expense
of accountability to professionals and service users. Opportunities to use forms in a
more promising way are neglected because of a lack of managerial capacity and
local government steering.
NPM’s democratic promise
So what can we conclude concerning the democratic promise of NPM? At the
institutional level organisations become more government- steered rather than
demand-oriented. NPM strengthens with contracts, standards en performance
measurement the voice of local government at the expense of the voice of citizens as
service users. The fact that there are no client councils only adds to this imbalance.
NPM did not wipe out paternalism, but merely replaced it: now it is local politics that
tends to patronize citizens. For ten years Lawton et al (2000) in reviewing the reforms
in NS in UK came to the same conclusion. They cite a health authority manager: “If
thy [the employees] have been displaced as the most powerful stakeholder, their
place has been taken by the government, not the patient.” (Lawton et al, p. 17). So
choice was indeed introduced, but only for local government as representative of
citizens, not for individual citizens directly. Local governments’ influence is what is
strengthened. You could call this democracy in the sense of representative
democracy, but then it is a very constrained elitist version of democracy (Hanberger
2006).
At the level of services delivery so it seems to be NPM did stimulate a more
attentive attitude to the ideas and needs of individual clients. However, it must be
stressed that social workers reject the notion of citizens as consumers, and even
reject the idea of serving their demands. This, they argue, underestimates the
peculiarities of social work. The NPM related market discourse of services/products
and customers/consumers does not recognize this.
Accountability does bring transparency and democracy, but again only in
relation to local government, not to professionals and service users. Moreover, it
creates new vagueness, and fuels time consuming bureaucracy. Social workers try to
incorporate accountability norms that fit their professional values and neutralize those
that threaten these values. They try to minimize disturbance to their day-to-day
activities. Opportunities to use forms in a more promising way are neglected because
of a lack of managerial capacity and local government steering.
Democratic professionalism
This somewhat gloomy picture raises the question if an alternative way for
democratizing local social work can be developed. There is of course an impressive
body of practices as well as research around the notion of participation in public
service provision (Cawston and Barbour, 2003; Cornwall and Gaventa, 2001) local
democracy (Fung en Wright, 2003), civil initiatives and Asset Based Community
Development (ABCD). Participation tends to start from the perspective of the client;
the interaction of with professionals is hardly in view. This is different in civic
professionalism (Sullivan, 2004) or collaboration (Vigoda, 2002) that starts from the
perspective and tasks of the professional. Civic professionalism departs from a rather
traditional idea of professionals as set out by Elliott Freidson (2001). Professionals
are understood as possessing and maintaining specialised knowledge about their
field, and exchanging this knowledge with colleagues, thus expanding the shared
knowledge of the profession as a whole. Professionals are expected to be driven by
(possibly secular) calling, rather than by status or money. A calling to serve a
transcendental aim, like health, justice or equality. Professionals are expected to
engage in democratic exchange with clients as well as with the broader audience
(Sullivan, 2004). Professionals must ‘re-engage the public over the nature and value
of what they do for the society at large.’ (Sullivan 2004, p. 19). Professionals must be
‘in real dialogue with their publics and open to public accountability.’ (Sullivan 2004,
p. 19), thereby ‘inviting public response and involvement in the profession’s effort to
clarify its mission and responsibilities.’ (ibid.)
The most promising perspective starts from neither the client nor the
professional but from the interaction between professionals, aiming at a maximizing
the democratic character of this exchange. Albert Dzur coined this democratic
professionalism (Dzur, 2003, 2004, 2008). The ‘democratic’ in democratic
professionalism takes shape in face to face relation between professionals and
clients. Democracy is not just an instrument; it is a value in itself. We will try to
sketch the promises of this model by rearticulating it in the terms used above: service
orientation, voice, choice en accountability.
Dzur does not explicitly contrast democratic professionalism with NMP’s
promises such as service orientation, but we can argue that from the perspective of
democratic professionalism, service-orientation fails to recognize the issue of
professional authority. The notion of service orientation even turns the authority
relation upside down: by presenting professionals as service providers, the authority
lies with the consumer whose demands should be served. Professionals, Dzur
argues, cannot and do not function without professional authority. We cannot wipe
this out; yet citizens also have authority, based on experiential knowledge. Dzur
quotes Dewey who points out that ‘the man who wears the shoe knows best that it
pinches and where it pinches, even if the expert shoemaker is the best judge of how
the trouble is to be remedied’ (Dewey 1927, p. 364, cited in Dzur 2004 p.10).
Democratic professionalism is not about complete equality between professionals
and clients. While some theorists of participation argue that ‘traditional boundaries
between expert and lay become blurred;..’ (Cawston and Barbour 2003, p. 721),
democratic professionalism maintains professionals both exercise authority and
share it’ (p.12). Professionals must ‘be in real dialogue with their publics’ (2004, 19)
but also ‘take public leadership in solving perceived public problems’ (p.18). They
must ‘both exercise authority and share it’. (Dzur 2004, p.12) This double task is what
makes democratic professionalism so complex, Dzur argues.
These two sources of authority demand that authority is shared by
professionals and citizens. Democratic professionalism is about ‘sharing authority in
public life’ by way of dialogue, both on individual, group, and collective level.
Knowledge is not only exchanged with colleagues but with clients as well.
Professionals explain their views and procedures, acknowledge the knowledge that
clients possess themselves and come to a shared view of problems and solutions.
Democratic professionals are task sharers, not task monopolists (Dzur, 2008, p.105)
Voice of citizens is thus crucial, but not primarily in boards or panels.
Professional authority and civic authority meet primarily in daily interaction; thus
democratic professionalism should shape exactly there. Informal participation is
therefore more important than formal participation, just as the social workers and
managers we interviewed claim. This can of course be backed up by formal
participation; but formal participation only makes sense if informal participation is well
established, because informal participation provides the signs and signals that formal
participation builds on (Duyvendak, Hoijtink and Tonkens, 2009). For professionals
good social work means that they incorporate the client’s voice in their support. For
social work this means that the informal democratic practices in social work we
sketched above, deserve recognition and should be linked to formal democratic
procedures like client councils and accountability systems. Also, the idea of a
professional calling should be recognised and cherished within the organisations,
because without a firm idea of what the purpose and meaning of their work is, social
workers cannot really enter dialogue (Kremer and Tonkens 2006).
Choice, thirdly, is important too, but as a steering mechanism to correct
professionals, nor as something professionals should keep their hands of in then
name of citizens’ autonomy. Democratic professionals are concerned about the
effects of their expertise on the lay public’s ability to make self-confident choices both
inside and outside a particular professional domain. As to social work, our interviews
make clear that the provider-purchaser split meant to augment citizen’s choice
merely augments the choice of politicians. It does not promote citizen’s choice nor
dialogue between social work and its social surrounding.
There is no less weight attached to accountability in democratic
professionalism than is the case in NPM, but this too is a shared task. Accountability
is not about external control of professionals who are in turn trying to hide from the
public gaze and do their own thing; it also demands something of professionals to
begin with. It demands an inquisitive, critical attitude from professionals. Dzur builds
on Dewey here: ‘Dewey’s social scientist promotes the growth of critical thinking by
challenging common sense views, encouraging abstract thinking, and by embodying
certain habits of mind and character.’ (Dzur 2004, p.11) For social work, this
demands that knowledge exchange and criticism of colleagues and clients should be
welcomed.
For social workers to become democratic professionals, it is necessary that
they themselves and their managers leave the self-victimization we also wittness. It
prevents them from doing what they believe in even though no one forbids them, like
discussing individual evaluation reports. Social workers and their managers could
show more public leadership (see also Kim Putters, 2005). If local social work acts
more proactive and innovative in setting up these dialogues and placing themselves
at the heart of the debate on social quality in society – comparable to the way in
which housing corporations place themselves at the heart of the debate on social
housing and neighbourhoods. This might also strengthen their legitimacy in society.
Conclusion
The democratic promise of NPM we reconstructed and analysed in this article was
not met in the practice of Dutch social work. We broke this promise down into four
elements: service orientation, voice, choice and accountability, and concluded that
NPM in Dutch social work strengthens neither of these in citizens. It merely
strengthens the voice and choice of politicians and policy makers, and accountability
towards them. This kind of accountability does not do justice to their professionalism,
social workers argue quite convincingly; however, we also came across self-
victimization of social workers and managers: some of them tend not to take the
discretionary space they do seem to have, e.g. to organise ways of accountability
that suit them better. On the other hand we also examples that social workers did
develop voice among citizens, but more in an informal manner. For professionals
good social work means that they incorporate the client’s voice in their support.
We also argued that democratic professionalism can serve as an alternative
model to develop democratic promises not met by NPM. Democratic professionalism
does not negate or try to abolish professional authority. It rather seeks ways to
combine professional and civic authority, recognizing the tension involved in both
exercising and sharing authority. This ideal could lead the way beyond NPM
democratic failure and self-victimization of social workers and their managers.
Literature
Bogt, ter, H.J. (2006) ‘New Public Management and management changes in Dutch
local government: some recent experiences and future topics’, Groningen.
(http://som.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/reports/themeD/2006/06D04/06D04_terBogt.pdf).
Boer, de, N. en J.W. Duyvendak (2004) ‘Welzijn’, in Wetenschappelijke Raad voor
het Regeringsbeleid (2004), Maatschappelijke dienstverlening. Een onderzoek naar
vijf sectoren, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Dewey, J. (1927) The public and its problems. Reprinted in John Dewey, the later
works: 1925-1953, Carbondale: South Illinois University Press.
Cawston, P.G. and R.S. Barbour (2003) ‘Clients or citizens? Some consideration for
primary care organisations.’, in: British Journal of General Practice, pp. 716-722.
Clarke, J. and J. Newman, (1997) The managerial state, Power, Politics and Ideology
in the Remaking of Social Welfare, London: Sage.
Clarke, J. (2004) Changing welfare, changing states. New directions in social policy.
London: Sage.
Cornwall, A. and J. Gaventa (2001) From users and choosers to makers and
shapers: repositioning participation in social policy. IDS-working paper, Brighton.
(http://www.ids.ac.uk/publications).
Duyvendak, J.W., Hoijtink, M. and E. Tonkens (2009) ‘Post-patient Perspectives.
User-based logics and the never ending inequality between users and professionals’,
in: H. Uwe Otto (red.) Evidence-based Practice: Modernising the Knowledge Base of
Social Work?, pg. 31-47. Opladen & Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Dzur, A.W. (2004) ‘Democratic professionalism: sharing authority in civic life’, in: The
good society, vol. 13 (1), pp. 6-14.
Dzur, A.W. (2008) Democratic Professionalism, Citizen Participation and the
Reconstruction of Professional Ethics, Identity, and Practice, Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Fung, A. and E. O. Wright (eds.) (2003) Deepening Democracy. Institutional
Innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso.
Freidson, E. (2001) Professionalism. The Third logic, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gay, P. du (2000) In praise of bureaucracy. Londen: Sage.
Hanberger, A. (2006) Evaluation of and for democracy, in: Evaluation Vol (12)1: 17-
37.
Hoijtink, M. en M. Oude Vrielink (2007) ‘Managers en professionals in de sociale
sector: ideologische clash of vermenging van waarden?’, Bestuurskunde, jr. 12, 4:
25-33.
Huijben, M. et al. (2003) Benchmark overhead 74 welzijnsinstellingen, Utrecht:
Berenschot.
Jordan, B. with C. Jordan (2000) Social work and the third way. Tough love as social
policy. Londen: Sage.
Kennedy, J. (1995) Building New Babylon: cultural change in the Netherlands during
the 1960s. Iowa: University of Iowa Press.
Kremer, M. en E. Tonkens (2006) ‘Authority, trust, knowledge and the public good in
disarray.’ in: Duyvendak, J.W., Knijn, T. and M. Kremer, Professionals between
people and policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 122-136.
Lawton, A., McKevitt, D. & Millar, M. (2000) ‘Coping with Ambiguity: reconciling
external legitimacy and organizational implementation’, in: Performance
Measurement Public Money & Management, Vol.20, issue 3, pp. 13 – 20.
Marquand, D. (2004) The decline of the public. Polity Press Bristol.
Newman, J and E.Tonkens (eds.) (2010) Participation, responsibility and choice:
summoning the active citizen in Western European welfare states. Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press.
Osborne, D.E. and Gaebler, T, (1992), Reinventing Government: How the
Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Peters, T.J. and R.H. Waterman (1982) In Search of Excellence, Lessons form
America’s Best-Run Companies, New York / London: Harper and Row.
Pollitt, C. (2003) The essential public manager, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Pollitt, C. (2006), ‘Performance Information for Democracy, The Missing Link?’, in:
Evaluation, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 38-55.
Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2004) Public Management Reform, A Comparative
Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Power, M. (1997) The audit society. Rituals of verification. Oxford U.P., Oxford
Prahabkar, R. (2006) Rethinking public services. Ne York: Palgrave.
Putters, K.. 'Maatschappelijk ondernemen' (2005), in: T.E.D. van der Grinten en P.L.
Meurs (red.), Gemengd besturen: besturingsvragen en trends in de
gezondheidszorg. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.
Rodger, J.J. (2000): From a welfare state to a welfare society. The changing context
of social policy in a postmodern era. London: MacMillan Press.
Sehested, K. (2002) ‘How new public management reforms challenge the roles of
professionals’, in: International journal of public administration, vol. 25, no. 12 pp.
1513-1537.
Sullivan, W. (2004) ‘Can professionalism still be a viable ethic?’, in: The good
society, vol.13 (1), pp. 15-20.
Tonkens, E. and I. Weijers, (1999) ‘Autonomy, care and self-realization. Policy views
of Dutch Service Providers.’ Mental Retardation. The journal of the American
Association on Mental Retardation vol. 37, nr.6, pp.468-476.
Tonkens, E. and L. van Doorn (2001) ‘Turning rough sleepers into responsible
citizens. Third Way policies on homelessness in England and the Netherlands.’
Renewal, the Journal of Labour Politics, vol.3, nr.3, pp. 142-151.
Tonkens, E. and J.W. Duyvendak (2003) ‘Paternalism – caught between rejection
and acceptance: taking care and taking control in community work’, in: Community
Development Studies, vol. 38., nr.1, pp. 6-15.
Tonkens, E. (2010) ‘Civicness and citizen participation in social services: conditions
for promoting respect and public concern.’ In: Bransen, T., Dekker, P. and A. Evers
(eds.), Civicness in the Governance of Social Services. Nomos, Baden-Baden.
Trommel, W. (2002) The return of the strong state; public governance and the quest
for institutional control, IRSPM VI, Edingburgh.
Vigoda, E. (2002) ‘From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens and
the next generation of public administration’, in: Public Administration Review, vol.
62, 5, pp.527-540.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (2004) Bewijzen van goede
dienstverlening, Rapporten aan de regering nr. 70, Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
Wiendels, M, M. Schulz en A. Jansen (2004) Doelmatigheid en doeltreffendheid van
subsidies in het welzijnswerk, Utrecht: Berenschot.
