Feminist attitudes in times of depoliticization of women's issues

Abstract. Based on data from Denmark from the end of the 1970s and 1980s the paper analyzes the development of feminist attitudes during a period characterized, on the one hand, by a high, and still growing, integration of women into the labour market and political life, and on the other, by an organizational decline of the women's movement and a decline in the politicization of women's issues. At the end of the 1970s, feminist attitudes, especially among women, were unidimensionally structured and closely related to other political factors. The most feminist were the young, the well-educated, the politically interested, and left-wing women. At the end of the 1980s, feminist attitudes were at the same level as ten years before, but different dimensions had emerged, a social and political dispersion of feminist attitudes had taken place, and feminism no longer influenced political behaviour. In many respects, the experience of the United States in the 1970s was reversed in Denmark in the 1980s.     

Grass roots participation in the Nordic countries

Abstract. Despite the similarities between the Nordic countries with regard to social and political structures, major differences in grass roots participation are found. Participation is highest in Sweden and lowest in Finland, with Denmark, Norway and Iceland falling in between. There are also striking differences between the countries regarding the relationships between participation and factors as age, gender, education, social class and party choice. Two theories may help us to understand these differences. The first, mobilization theory, claims that grass root participation is used to mobilize new social groups. This theory is supported by evidence from Denmark, Norway and Iceland. During the 1970s and the 1980s all three countries experienced political mobilization of the well-educated, the new middle class and the women. The second theory, supplement theory, claims that grass root participation is nothing but an extension of the conventional modes of participation. This theory is supported in Sweden. The last section of the paper argues that differences between countries may be explained by differences in the strength of traditional political organizations.     

ONE‐STOP SHOPS FOR SOCIAL WELFARE: THE ADAPTATION OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL FORM IN THREE COUNTRIES

In recent years welfare services in Western Europe have been criticized for poor coordination. In response, ‘seamlessness’ has emerged as a vision for public administration with ‘one‐stop shops' viewed as means to reach this. This article conceptualizes the one‐stop shop and presents a three country case study to examine its drivers and its adaptation. In all countries the reforms meant mergers driven by hopes for a single entrance to services as well as proximity to citizens. However, the analysis of task portfolios, participant structure, instruments and autonomy reveal important variations in the adaptations. The specific configurations of one‐stop shops that emerged were partially a product of compromises and negotiations influenced by the political and performance priorities of central government. The classical trade‐off between specialization and coordination persists, but by offering users ICT‐based services one can to some extent maintain specialization behind the frontline and still provide services that are coordinated from a user perspective.     

Understanding Organizational Reforms in the Modern State: Specialization and Integration in Norway and France

This article examines the challenge Norway and France face in coordinating specialized government activities after 10 years of comprehensive reforms. The focus is on the tension between territorial and sectoral specialization and between vertical and horizontal specialization. We describe both sector‐specific administrative reforms and more overarching general reforms, looking at similarities and differences in the reorganization choices made by the two countries and also at what drives change. We argue that a combination of factors is required to explain outcomes. These factors include not only home‐grown reforms but also sectoral challenges, diffusion and learning from abroad, adaptation to the financial crisis and budget deficit, and choices made by powerful political executives. Sometimes these factors work together and reinforce each other, producing radical reforms; at other times they have a mutually constraining influence, resulting in only minor changes.     

HOW TO ASSESS ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM? INVESTIGATING THE ADOPTION AND PRELIMINARY IMPACTS OF THE NORWEGIAN WELFARE ADMINISTRATION REFORM

This article addresses how to assess public-sector reforms using a reform in the Norwegian welfare administration as a case study. This reform represents a complex hybrid organizational form and a challenging combination of political control and local autonomy. We examine first how the reform has addressed its three main goals. These were to get people off welfare and back into work, to bring about more service-orientation, and to increase efficiency. We also address the side-effects of the reform by describing operational effects, process effects and system effects. Second, we examine how effects can be understood from an instrumental, cultural, and environmental perspective. A main finding is that context is significant for effects, and that it has so far proven difficult to discern clear overall effects concerning the main goals of the reforms and their side-effects.     

Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare: The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic

Public attitudes towards welfare policy are often explained by political values and perceptions of deservingness of welfare recipients. This article addresses how the impact of values and perceptions varies depending on the contextual information that citizens have available when forming welfare opinions. It is argued that whenever citizens face deservingness‐relevant cues in public debate or the media, a psychological ‘deservingness heuristic’ is triggered prompting individuals spontaneously to think about welfare policy in terms of who deserves help. This is an automatic process, equally influential among the least and the most politically sophisticated. Moreover, when clear deservingness cues are present, the impact of values on opinions vanishes. These arguments are supported by data from two novel experimental studies embedded in separate nationwide opinion surveys. The findings revise conventional wisdom of how values and heuristics influence public opinion and have major implications for understanding dynamics in aggregate welfare opinion and attempts from political elites to manipulate public opinion.