|
| |
| |
| |
Summary
The Making of A Welfare Policy
Evolution and Evaluation of Community Organization
Part I - Introduction
This study on the making of a welfare policy - more specifically that policy
concerning community organization in the Netherlands - is intended to be a
contribution to:
| (a) | The sociology of policy - making processes. There is, generally speaking,
too little attention paid in sociology to the actual making of social
policies. This is to be regretted, from a social point of view as well, as
those conditions within which the action of people and groupings is situated
are generally determined in the centres of policy making. In this instance
special attention needs to be paid to the bureaucracy's (the ‘fourth
power's) independent influence on policy making, particularly in this case
where the policy of the central government is dealt with. Insight into this
matter is of the greatest importance if decision-making processes are to be
made as democratic as possible. |
| (b) | The theory of processes of institutionalization. Stability and processes
of change constitute central foci of attention in sociological theory.
Processes of institutionalization and the breakdown of institutionalization
take place in the dynamic field of change and stability. Much has been
written in sociological theory about such concepts as institution and
institutionalization. P.M. Blau states that the ‘study of
institutionalization is often considered the central aim of sociology’ but
continues with a remark which is as much to the point saying that ‘there are
hardly any systematic investigations of institutionalization that take the
concept seriously and analyze the distinctive process that it signifies’. In
this study the development of policy on community organization has been
interpreted in terms of a process of institutionalization. |
The topic of community organization was determined upon for several reasons:
| a | the importance of and interest for welfare problems has been increasing
during recent years. |
| |
| |
| b | in welfare policies community organization occupies a position of central
importance - as far as points of departure and ideology are concerned. |
| c | on different levels, sociologists have played an important role in
community organization. Hence by treating this subject one also gains an
impression of applied sociology. |
| d | community organization has, further more, the following advantages for an
analysis cast in terms of institutionalization:
| - | it constitutes a social activity the limits of which can be
defined with reasonable accuracy |
| - | it is of relatively limited scope and |
| - | it has a short history, so it can be studied from its
inception. |
|
| |
Part 2 - The Development of a Policy
In this part of the thesis the relevant policy processes are described and
analysed in terms of institutionalization.
| |
1 Institutionalization
To begin with, a limited survey of the literature is presented. From this
survey two interpretations of institutionalization emerge: in the first
place an interpretation which concurs with what could be called the
classic-sociological or anthropological tradition. In this tradition
institutionalization is linked up with the basic needs, values and
prerequisites etc. of a social system (e.g. economic - procreation - and
social order phenomena - economics, marriage, law). In the more modern view
institutionalization is often related to ‘new’ social phenomena and
processes, for instance all forms of conscious social action (e.g. policy
making).
I define institutionalization as the process of development of a pattern of
social activities and means related to a particular problem (purpose,
value). For institutionalization to come about the following conditions must
be fulfilled:
| a | the existence of a certain problem (purpose, value); |
| b | the possibility of communication; |
| c | the presence of societal support. |
This is not to say, of course, that, if these conditions are fulfilled, a
process of institutionalization will necessarily take place. What we are
talking about here is a chance, a probability, which naturally increases
with the strength of the conditions mentioned above.
| Sub a. | Here we are concerned with the content and history of the problem or
goal in the social system. What is the relation between the content of
these goals and the nature of the social system? Are one or more goals
(problems) involved? The hypothesis is put forward that the smaller the
number of goals the greater the chance for institutionalization. In
relation to this the question is asked what kind of commitment the goals
require of |
| |
| |
| the participants. Are these goals of a
utilitarian, normative or coercive character? The hypothesis here is
that institutionalization will come about less easily the greater the
number of dimensions of the action system touched by these goals.
Finally the scope of these goals has to be traced - i.e. the number of
people to whom these goals are purported to be potentially relevant has
to be determined. The supposition that institutionalization occurs only
vaguely when there is a great difference between potential and actual
scope appears to be rather obvious. |
| Sub b. | The presence and availability of means of communication is of great
importance for the creation of a consensus. |
| Sub c. | The extent to which persons and groupings are attracted to certain
goals is of decisive importance for the process of institutionalization.
The degree of institutionalization occurring is indicated by the nature,
scope and intensity of societal support. It is more important to find
out to what point the process of institutionalization has progressed
(i.e. the degree of institutionalization) than to state the bare fact
that it is taking place, A distinction is made here between anticipatory
and autonomous institutionalization. The concept of anticipatory
socialization refers to a situation in which the relevant initiative is
taken in a centre of power, in the expectation that after a while it
will receive support from the groupings for which the activity to be
institutionalized is alleged to be intended. The term autonomous
institutionalization refers to a process resulting mainly from an
initiative taken by participants of a grass roots level. |
Anticipatory institutionalization necessitates an orientation downward, in an
attempt to enlarge its social basis; autonomous institutionalization implies
the necessity of building up an adequate structure of authority and control,
and hence an orientation upwards. There is often a fluent transition between
these forms of institutionalization; we are certainly not dealing here with
a contradistinction in the strict sense of the word.
| |
2 The Goals
Before the war there were already some activities - e.g. neighbourhood work
and developmental activities in some agricultural areas - which could be
considered a prelude to community organization. However it was only after
the war that community organization, also under the influence of American
ideas on this field of activity, came to further development. We can
distinguish the following phases of development in the formulation of goals
here, in which the central government (from 1952-1965 the Department of
Social Work, and from 1965 onwards the Department of Culture, Recreation and
Social Work) has played a dominant role. During the first phase (1952-1958)
the emphasis was on the satisfaction of social needs - via the allocation of
money for social-cultural provisions - related to processes of industrial
development and agricultural reconstruction in some predominantly agrarian
regions in the Northern, Eastern and Southern parts | |
| |
of the
Netherlands. During the following period (1959-1972) there was growing
concern with the participation of the population itself, with the increase
of the direct influence of the population on the creation of its environment
and the decrease of the distance between administrators and administered.
The goals of community organization were then merged with the goals of a
broader welfare policy, which explicitly announced itself as such in the
second half of the sixties. Community organization is now purported to be
relevant for the entire population (the so-called general function).
| |
3 Societal support
Of those factors which are important for societal support or opposition the
following should be mentioned:
| |
Central government
- The most powerful support to community organization has been given on this
level. Community organization has received here its initial development and
financial support. It is the central government which has defined the speed
of developments in this matter, and the civil service has played an
important role here. Organizational concern with community organization has
been extended in the course of time to the various provincial and regional
levels. It started on the provincial level and since 1965 has spread from
there to town council level. We now find ‘community organization (or
welfare) councils’ on all these levels.
| |
The Political Parties
- Until about 1960, the political parties kept aloof from community
organization. They believed that the relevant department of central
government was too rash and they could not follow developments very well.
Later they adopted a more positive attitude towards prevailing welfare
policies and hence also towards community organization, without one being
able to talk of enthusiastic support here.
| |
Private Associations
- Originally, those voluntary associations which traditionally monopolized
the field of social welfare, and which were embedded within the
religious-political, ‘pillarized’ structure of Dutch society, also kept
rather aloof from this form of social welfare (community organization being,
beside ‘casework’ and ‘group work’, the third method in social work). These
associations included community organization in their packet of provisions
even later than did the political parties. Community organization was a
threat to the existing structure, based on religious-political ties, because
of its predominantly territorial and cooperation-oriented character. During
the last few years private associations have done much to draw community
organization within their orbit. However, one can still observe inhibitions
in this area.
| |
The Population
- It can be stated that, generally speaking, community organization has
hardly received any support from the population at large; this in spite of
the fact that it derives its raison d'etre from the population. A large part
of the population is not even familiar with any community organization
work.
| |
| |
| |
4 The Means
The development of the means allocated to community organization constitutes
a concrete index of the size of its social support. The fact that the
apparatus, originating in this support, begins to exert its own independent
influence on the process of institutionalization (reification) justifies
special attention for this aspect. To provide just a few figures here:
central government expenditure on community organization has increased in
the period 1953-1972 from ƒ 740.000,- to more than 84 million guilders. The
number organizations in this field which are subsidized by the government
has increased from a few, just after the war, to 511 (in 1971), with more
than 2100 functionaries. Government support also acquired a firm basis
during this time in the shape of general regulations for subsidies; this
ensured to a great extent the continuity of community organization work.
| |
5 Conclusion
Looking at the goals again it can be seen that their scope has been enlarged
to such an extent that they actually impede institutionalization. There is
great confusion about the aims of community organization. Measured by its
societal support - and the resulting means - the degree of
institutionalization has increased strongly. A rather substantial apparatus
has come about, which renders reasonable stability to community organization
work. During this whole policy period the degree of institutionalization has
increased, generally speaking. We can talk here of anticipatory
institutionalization because of the dominant role of the central government
in community organization. The institutionalization of community
organization has been impeded by the lack of relevant support from the
population; this deficiency also constitutes a potential threat to further
institutionalization.
| |
Part III - The Implementation of a Policy
1 Introduction
In Part II we looked at the historical development of community organization
and we used certain criteria to establish the stage reached in the process
of its institutionalization. It is possible to imagine a higher or lower
stage being reached, we need to define more narrowly the reasons for the
attainment of precisely this degree of institutionalization by community
organization; hence we need to observe more closely the contents of the
relevant policy and the social structure within which it had to be
implemented. The considerations on this point also amount to an evaluation
of the policy concerned.
| |
2 The Theory of Community Organization
The desire to engage in community organization results directly from an
awareness, in governing circles, of a crisis situation, which necessitates
| |
| |
democracy and participation on the grass roots level to be
strengthened. Community organization is here one of the means available. The
right of democratic self-determination ranks highly in the theory and
ideology of community organization. Hence, its chosen method is the
so-called non-directive approach. However, the fact that there is always
governmental interference - for community organization work is presented
from above - causes this methodological point of departure to be a mere
illusion.
| |
3 Theory and Policy
As community organization is intended to boost large scale participation and
the taking of independent initiatives the question arises whether and how
such taking of initiatives can be stimulated. Dutch policy on this point is
inspired by two points of view. According to one of these - which I would
like to call the doctrine of adaptation - the reason for community
organization is the fact that certain groupings and regions fall behind in
the rapid technical-economic changes of society (social and cultural lag).
According to the other point of view - the doctrine of participation -
official policy should promote the participation and taking of initiatives
by private citizens (fundamental democratization).
| |
The doctrine of adaptation
- The policies which have been mainly inspired by this doctrine deal with:
backward families and neighbourhoods (deprivation); the coordination of
social work within the ‘pillarized’ private associations; regional welfare
policies; provisions for aliens; and the social information officers. In
almost all cases community organization offers provisions which do not
induce significant change in the existent backwardness, as (a) the cause of
the latter is not primarily a social-cultural one and hence not to be looked
for in the area covered by the relevant policies and (b) the population,
which is the real object of these policies, would have to adapt itself in a
one-sided manner. If the population participates in an active manner - and
such participation has indeed been very much on the increase during the last
few years - their activities take place largely outside the official
community organization framework.
| |
The doctrine of participation
- The promotion of participation has been an issue of central importance in
the social policies of these last ten years in particular - in any case a
lot of lip service has been paid to it. However, it is a conspicuous fact
that no clear definition of participation has been forthcoming yet and that
no answer has been given to the question, why, in order to induce which
social changes, participation should be stimulated. One gains the prima
facie impression that a participatory democracy, with for instance
self-determination, is the official goal. However, the promotion of
participation and the provisions entailed by this has, in fact, another
function - it constitutes a response to the democratization movements which
were set into motion in the sixties. The government was attempting to
suggest to the outside world that it desired to democratize its own
policies. | |
| |
The highly peripheral activities included in
community organization - almost 80% of total expenditure goes to activities
covered by the doctrine of adaptation as well as buildings etc. - do not
justify the conclusion that the promotion of participation as far as
(social) environment is concerned has really been taken very seriously.
Compared to American community organization for instance, which has exerted
an important influence on its Dutch equivalent especially as far as the
acceptance of official policy is concerned, Dutch community organizations
shows itself to be preoccupied with rather irrelevant problems.
The aims of community organization are of a very large scope and hence cause
the relevant organizations to compete with the already existent
territorial-political institutions. This comes out most clearly on the level
of town and city, where community organization has been trying to gain a
foothold since 1965. However, here too community organization plays only a
subordinate role as it amounts to nothing more than advice in the social
cultural field and therefore can not compete with the activities of the more
heavily manned political-bureaucratic apparatus on which it is, moreover,
dependent for its finances. The relevant decisions are taken by the
political apparatus, which, indeed, has political responsibility for these.
The community organization institutions on the provincial level work,
comparativily, most effectivily, because traditionally there have been no
provisions on this level for the implementation of social-cultural policies.
However, in all these cases the relevant institutions can be regarded as
part and parcel of the political-bureaucratic system. The real changes in
the political-bureaucratic structure have been induced by the activities of
private citizens (action groups), whose activities took shape in the great
majority of cases outside the framework of community organization, which
therefore hardly influenced these activities. The institutions for community
organization can be easily controlled, because of their origin in the sphere
of central government. The central bureaucracy - having much discretion in
this field - has adroitly made use of the popularity of certain public
issues (democratization, participation etc.) to expand the governmental
scope of community organization. There has been little counter-activity in
parliament, which has not exerted much real control. In conclusion we can
state here that the government has barely fulfilled the goals of community
organization.
| |
Part IV - Policy Perspectives
In this part of the thesis some suggestions have been made, not only for
policy towards community organization but also for welfare policy in
general. I have pleaded, amongst other things, for breaking down, to some
degree, the institutionalized character of activities related to community
organization: that is to say I have argued for a change-over from | |
| |
support for organizations to that for concrete activities
originating from the initiatives of private citizens. Concrete ideas on
welfare are always changing (because of their dynamic character), and
therefore we have to guard against bureaucratization which can be so easily
promoted by setting up organizations. Furthermore I have warned against
unduly widening the concept of welfare, since this would cause it to
disappear as a separate category of policy-making. Of course, the promotion
of welfare is, in its strict sense, the object of a total policy, consisting
of economic, social and juridical measures. Welfare work, as a separate
policy, can only derive its identity from the ever present need for help -
which should then be offered. However, it remains necessary to try and
eradicate, as far as possible, the circumstances which cause this need for
help to exist. This also implies that a direct link has to be established
between the welfare sector and other sectors of society, which would enable
us to use the data from the welfare sector as basic materials for
social-political measures of a preventive character. In this sense welfare
policy is an indicative policy as well. Changes in the chaotic structure of
welfare work organizations are also necessary. To achieve this we need -
besides a certain increase in scale - to decentralize the provisions and
integrate the welfare organizations as far as functional (professional),
territorial and ideological aspects are concerned. The rapid dissolution of
‘pillarized’ structures which has been taking place during the last few
years should result in new structures, in which responsibility is shared by
clients, professional social workers and the institutions providing the
financial backing. The positive effects of welfare policies, which can be
ascribed to the policy on community organizations, are:
| - | the admittedly modest beginning in the disappearance of ideology (the
‘pillars’) as the main structuring factor in the organization of welfare
provisions; |
| - | the fact that under cover of community organization welfare provisions
have been made and means allocated, which, given the growing demand for
welfare provisions, can in principle also be used for things other than
community organization; |
| - | that groupings - or, more broadly, (parts of) society - can now
constitute points of departure in the creation of a social policy in the
wide sense; as far as this is concerned the government has been
definitely ahead; in this way the relatively independent societal
function of ‘the social’, as compared to, for instance, the economic,
juridical, cultural etc., has been recognized and acknowledged. |
|
|
Auteursrechtelijk beschermd