http://esp.sagepub.

com/
Journal of European Social Policy
http://esp.sagepub.com/content/16/4/346
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0958928706068273
2006 16: 346 Journal of European Social Policy
Ingo Bode
Europe
Disorganized welfare mixes: voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Journal of European Social Policy Additional services and information for

http://esp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://esp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://esp.sagepub.com/content/16/4/346.refs.html Citations:

What is This?

- Nov 29, 2006 Version of Record >>

at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Introduction
For some time now, scholars studying social
welfare problems have faced an intriguing challenge.
Throughout many decades, and across Western
Europe, it was the state that was deemed responsible
for, and capable of, steering the provision of those
transfers and services that were to alleviate social hard-
ship, as produced by capitalist market economies.
Consequently, it was the prevalent object of scientific
inquiry. Nowadays, it seems that the state is no longer
in a position to control the organization of social
welfare and needs a helping hand from elsewhere.
Reference is made to a shift from government to
governance . . . on all scales (Jessop, 2002: 35), with
changed patterns of management, administration
and . . . co-ordinating welfare-related activities (Daly,
2003: 119). Classical bureaucratic patterns of steer-
ing welfare provision are viewed as being deficient
in both the administration of benefits (e.g. Jobseekers
Allowances or entitlements to medical treatment) and
the delivery of social services. The latter, in particular,
have become subject to what has been termed quasi-
market governance (Bnker and Wollmann, 2000;
Brandsen, 2004; Le Grand, 2003). This governance
materializes in a new contract culture and a business
jargon capturing both welfare bureaucracies and non-
statutory agencies involved in service provision.
Together with this, however, social welfare provi-
sion has become viewed as being more and more
Disorganized welfare mixes: voluntary agencies
and new governance regimes in Western Europe
Ingo Bode*, Universitt Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Article
Journal of European Social Policy 0958-9287; Vol 16(4): 346359; 068273 Copyright 2006 SAGE Publications, London, Thousand
Oaks and New Delhi, DOI: 10.1177/0958928706068273 http://esp.sagepub.com
Summary In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in though an insufficient under-
standing of changes in the governance of welfare and related governance regimes, with the latter
being conceptualized as systems of multifaceted inter-agency relations and associated modes of coor-
dination. Referring to evidence from France, Britain and Germany, the article explores these changes
with an eye on the role of voluntary organizations within these regimes. It challenges widespread
typologies of welfare mixes as well as general assumptions about international variation. It argues
that, throughout Western Europe, similar governance regimes emerged in the postwar settlement,
materializing in an organized welfare mix. It then illustrates how these regimes currently undergo a
process of permanent dis- and reorganization, again irrespective of international differences. Long-
established patterns of a system-wide coordination via negotiated publicprivate partnerships turn into
volatile configurations, with a growing albeit varying influence of the market rationale. Moreover,
there is an increasing distance between voluntary provider organizations and both the welfare state and
civil society, with this entailing precarious, but also more dynamic interrelations. Finally, civic action
becomes more fluid, sporadic, dispersed but also more creative in many places. Hence, there is the
paradox of the new welfare mixes exhibiting innovative dynamics and systematic organizational
failure at the same time, with (more) output heterogeneity as an inevitable consequence.
Key words comparative social policy, non-profit management, social care, voluntary sector, welfare mix
*Author to whom correspondence should be sent: Ingo Bode, Institut fr Soziologie, Universitt Duisburg-Essen, Standort
Duisbury D-47048, Duisburg, Germany. [email: bode@uni-duisburg.de]
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Disorganized welfare mixes 347
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
(co)produced in a multifaceted process of inter-
organizational exchange, the latter involving . . . the
market . . . but also civil society actors (Kooman,
2003: 3; emphasis added). Especially in New
Labours Britain, there has been growing enthusiasm
for civil society-based initiatives bringing their partic-
ular capacities into partnerships for better gover-
nance (Entwistle and Martin, 2005). Elsewhere, this
orientation has been less explicit, yet the role of asso-
ciations or grassroots citizen groups has been subject
to reappraisal across Europe.
1
Altogether, then, there
seems to be less state, more market and more civil
society and accordingly, new modes of coordina-
tion in what may be labelled the social welfare sector
(Kaufmann, 2001: 21).
Against this background, the academic debate
oscillates between several perspectives when the focus
is on the role voluntary agencies play in the welfare
state. These organizations are conceived of either as a
mere appendage of a modernized public administra-
tion an understanding which widely denies their
particular role in the provision of social welfare or
as marketized agencies becoming a mere business
partner of managerial states (Clarke and Newman,
1997) a perspective which may justify seeing their
link to civil society becoming redundant-, or finally,
as a social force contributing to a welfare mix which
is gainfully combining inputs and rationales from
state, market and civil society (see Evers, 1993).
This article, however, argues that neither of these
narratives tells us the full story about the inner evo-
lution of the social welfare sector. All of them fail to
access the contradictory and complex nature of the
new governance regime which following broader
evolutions in the political economy of late modern
societies crystallizes across contemporary Western
Europe. It conceptualizes governance as comprising
the . . . definitions of welfare, the . . . institutions
responsible for its delivery, and the practices in and
through which welfare is delivered (Jessop, 1999:
351), and governance regimes as a system of multi-
faceted inter-agency relations and associated modes
of coordination. It focuses on voluntary agencies as
partners of the welfare state. While this may down-
play the increasing role of for-profit providers in a
number of social service fields (especially in Britain),
sharp distinctions between non-profit and for-profit
providers do not appear pertinent anymore, given the
increasing blurring of intersectoral boundaries
within the welfare mix.
2
Hence some of the dynamics
depicted in what follows may also apply to for-profit
agencies.
Taking three major European countries France,
Germany and Britain as an example, the article
challenges both the assertion of an overall conti-
nuity in the governance of welfare (see e.g. Bahle,
2003) and the assumption that the postwar gover-
nance regimes of these countries have differed, and
do still differ, in their basic societal organization
(see e.g. Salamon and Anheier, 1998a). It implies
that these regimes, drawing on a similar heritage,
are also in a common state of transformation, as
current processes of organizational change in the
social welfare sector reveal. It argues in particular
that current welfare mixes underlie a trend towards
disorganization, with three characteristics being
most prominent: (a) long-established patterns
of a system-wide coordination via negotiated
publicprivate partnerships turn into volatile and
heterogeneous configurations, with organizational
outputs (e.g. service delivery performance) being
accepted to be variable as a principle; (b) the
new welfare mix is exhibiting a growing distance
between non-statutory provider organizations and
both the welfare state and civil society, thus entail-
ing more precarious, but also more dynamic inter-
relations; (c) civic action turns out to be fluid,
sporadic, dispersed but also creative in many places.
Hence there is the paradox of the new welfare mix
generating innovative dynamics and systematic
organizational failure concomitantly.
The investigation draws on an extensive literature
review and on results from comparative research com-
parative research on voluntary agencies typical of the
new welfare mixes, based upon in-depth case-studies
in the fields of care for the elderly, welfare to work,
and help to the homeless (Bode, 2003ac; 2004).
3
The
argument proceeds as follows. First, we roughly
sketch the patterns of the organized welfare mix
typical of the postwar settlement. In the following
section, current evolutions are pictured by referring
to examples from selected organizational fields. The
analysis concentrates on organizational routines of
resource and communication management to be
found in two areas: care for the elderly, which is a
field addressing broader clienteles of social services,
and initiatives against social exclusion with their
focus on marginalized groups. The conclusion dis-
cusses the wider implications of the move towards
disorganized welfare mixes.
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Welfare mixes in Europe:
commonalities beyond differences
Contrary to a popular idea, welfare mixes have
existed prior to the crisis of European welfare states,
and prior to those new social movements which, from
the 1970s onwards, have contested an (alleged) over-
bureaucratized practice of social (and medical) service
provision. Across Western Europe, for many decades,
the social welfare sector has comprised various non-
statutory organizations. Some of these organizations
can be viewed as quasi-governmental bodies, whereas
others exhibit characteristics of voluntary agencies,
with independent boards, some citizen involvement,
and a particular political or value-based identity. The
emergence of such organizations and their coopera-
tion with public authorities were emblematic of the
history of European welfare states. This also holds for
the very process of governing social welfare. In many
countries, it was by privatepublic partnerships
4
that
the social welfare sector took shape, concerning both
what was provided and how this was accomplished.
Understanding the welfare states history as an evolu-
tion from a mere state-based, to a more pluralistic
system of welfare provision would therefore appear
oversimplistic. Rather, when addressing evolutionary
logics, the crucial point is not the partnership between
the state and the voluntary sector, or the participation
of civil society in the social welfare sector as such, but
the transformation of this partnership including the
form of civic participation.
Moreover, classical assumptions about interna-
tional divergence should be nuanced. While it holds
true that, in the social welfare sector, the specificities
of governance are strongly rooted in the political
culture and configurations of social provision in each
country (Evers et al., 2005: 196), the widely held per-
ception that there has been (and persists) a heavily
state-controlled welfare mix in France, a decentral-
ized, so-called corporatist or social partner system
in Germany, and a liberal regime in the United
Kingdom, with charities deemed both independent
and subject to a state-led governance of social welfare
provision, reflects only part of the reality. Of course,
Germany is a country where shared governance has
become most obvious throughout the 20th century
(Bode, 2003a). Streeck (1997) has rightly argued that
the corporatist organization
5
of the market economy
in Germany has been paralleled by a partnership-
based governance of the social welfare sector (see also
Salamon and Anheier, 1998b; Zimmer, 1999). To put
it another way, the political economy of the postwar
settlement connected with a particular welfare mix.
Germany was by no means an exception, though,
irrespective of what usually is referred to as varieties
of capitalism (Boyer, 2005; Ebbinghaus and Manow,
2001; Schmidt, 2002). Even in liberal societies such
as Britain, the idea of organizing (in the sense of con-
sensually steering) the market economy was relatively
prominent during the 1960s and 1970s (Middelton,
2000), and together with this, liberal, worlds of
welfare capitalism (Esping-Andersen, 1990) embraced
publicprivate partnerships within the social welfare
sector.
6
This holds for the management of health pro-
vision (Giaimo, 2002), but also for social services
(Anttonen et al., 2003; Ascoli and Ranci, 2002).
Thus, the social welfare sectors of the three countries
under investigation here adopted a range of common
characteristics during the heyday of organized capital-
ism. Britain saw the rise of strong local social service
departments (SSDs) which became the core of the
social welfare sector during the 1970s. However,
voluntary agencies were already participating in the
local governance of welfare, sometimes through
providing services, more often through exerting
influence on programmes and clients. While the
service-providing role of voluntary agencies was con-
fined to some niches (Lewis, 1995), the literature
nonetheless refers to a dual system of welfare provi-
sion in which such agencies proved influential (Taylor,
2002: 80; see also Birkinshaw et al., 1990: 102ff.
Newman, 2003: 17). Moreover, there is evidence for
more formalized publicprivate partnerships taking
shape during this period (e.g. Means and Smith, 1998).
One area in which these partnerships materialized
was in the practice of systematic grant funding.
Importantly, this connectedness of the political system
with the voluntary sector corresponded to a particular
social embeddedness of the latter: many voluntary
agencies, including those post-charitable organiza-
tions growing out of new social movements, drew their
energies from milieus of activists strongly committed to
a civic cause and to political action (Aiken, 2002).
In France, the active role of voluntary agencies
within the social welfare sector was (even) more strik-
ing. In spite of a powerful state eager to control social
service provision, the French social welfare sector
always remained dualistic in kind, with a high propor-
tion of services being delivered by independent orga-
nizations (associations gestionnaires). The historical
348 Bode
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
background for this was the social contract of the
early 20th century (Bec, 1994). This contract enabled
church-related organizations to participate in the
provision of social welfare, provided that republican
values were respected. In the sequel, the publicly-
funded organizations developed strong political influ-
ence in the shadow of the state (Argoud, 1992). Local
corporatism proved important, as many voluntary
agencies received public recognition and grants
through relations established between local notables
and political leaders (Gremion, 1976). In France, too,
the political embeddedness of voluntary social services
agencies was paralleled by these agencies being bound
to strong associational milieus, with the latter being
inspired by social Catholicism or visions of the labour
movement. On these grounds, the French social
welfare sector was subject to an extensive cooperation
in the post war period (Archambault, 2001: 218).
In Germany, a major proportion of social service
provision was, from the 1920s onwards, devolved
upon voluntary organizations forming networks of
so-called welfare associations (Wohlfahrtsverbnde).
This too was based on a concordat between the state
and the churches. The dominant role of non-profit
providers in the social welfare sector was enshrined
into basic legislation and consolidated in the 1960s.
Co-determination, common planning boards, the
providers right to reimbursements for eventual
expenses, and the use of the associations expertise in
legislative processes were key characteristics of the
German partnershipmodel (Anheier and Seibel, 2001:
16186; Bode and Evers, 2004: 10710). Its key
actors, the welfare associations, had grown as organi-
zations rooted in faith-based communities or in social
democracy. Those voluntary initiatives, which mush-
roomed with and after the rise of the so-called new
social movements in the late 1970s, enjoyed a similar
endorsement from civil society.
The welfare mix taking shape during the last
century can thus be outlined as follows:
1. Civil society helped shape social welfare provi-
sion long before academics commenced writing
on partnerships and mixed economies of welfare.
With the rise of the beginning of the social state
in the early 20th century, voluntary agencies
engaging in social support or advocacy became
strongly coupled with both institutional (social
policy) and civic environments (movements, vol-
unteers). In many places, the production of social
welfare proceeded through a short cut between
boundary actors from the voluntary field and
political or administrative bodies.
2. Civil society-linked organizations were partici-
pating in the planning, delivery and supervision
in other words, governance of social services,
though to a varying extent. The result was a
tendency towards a system-wide coordination
through agreements about problems, means and
responsibilities. It holds true that these agree-
ments were often flawed by informal networking
and insider privileges, yet the standardization of
inputs, a common orientation towards what was
viewed as a valuable outcome, and deliberative,
expertise-based social policy making were the
official norms.
3. The stakeholders of voluntary agencies exhib-
ited a high civic commitment to their cause and
milieu, materializing in long-term though often
loyalistic or even uncritical patterns of volun-
teering and organizational support.
Importantly, inter-agency collaboration was largely
based on trust or connivance rather than on compre-
hensive demands on (output) accountability. Market
relations and competitive structures did not play a
role.
7
Equally, there was little competition for volun-
teers and donations. At the same time, voluntary
agencies were more than mere transmission belts of
social policies. They developed their own projects and
routines, and their boards or stakeholders were (more
or less) invited to co-design social policies. As a result,
there was an evolutionary tendency of harmonizing
practices throughout the social welfare sector, with
public actors moderating (but not prescribing) inter-
agency cooperation, and with civic actors bringing
their particular ideas to bear within the political
establishment. Put in a nutshell: the postwar settle-
ment was based on a highly organized welfare mix,
beyond national particularities.
As already mentioned, this overall configuration
connected with the political economy of organized
capitalism. An interventionist state and a highly coor-
dinated market economy proved fertile grounds for the
then prevailing partnership approach. It is important
to take civil society into the equation when assessing
the political economy framework of the postwar
worlds of welfare capitalism, with respect to both the
technical involvement of civil society-rooted organi-
zations into the governance of welfare and the political
Disorganized welfare mixes 349
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
inclusion of actors rooted in movement milieus. One is,
however, inclined to ask what happens to the gover-
nance of welfare with the waning of organized capi-
talism. As Lash and Urry argued almost 20 years ago,
the tendency goes towards disorganized capitalism,
and many have agreed to this since (e.g. Boltanski and
Chiapello, 1999; Castells, 1996). Major driving forces
of changes mean a more flexible world economy and
the end of direct state interventionism; but also the plu-
ralization of class structures and altered cultural repre-
sentations among major social groups. There is a slow
demise of those collective actors which have sought to
coherently organise the socio-political systems of . . .
welfare state capitalism (Offe, 1985: 6). Moreover, the
crusade of New Public Management (Belle Hansen and
Lauridsen, 2004) and the silent surrender of public
responsibility for social well-being (Gilbert, 2002)
indicate that governance regimes in the social welfare
sector are profoundly changing. Yet what is the new
configuration?
Confusing moves: how national
settings are co-evolving
Welfare mixes in contemporary Europe seem to
undergo a process of marketization, with the Anglo-
Saxon countries as forerunners (Ascoli and Ranci,
2002; Bnker and Wollmann, 2000; Dixon and
Kouzmin, 2001). However, it appears that the state
remains a key player, given its attempts to control the
context of welfare provision (Bahle, 2003; Clarke,
2004: 11525). Moreover, many see a tendency
towards greater co-governance (Kooman, 2003:
96), with an increasing scope for partnerships and a
more active role for civil society. For example, in the
UK, quasi-markets are well established in the social
welfare sector. Yet Britain has also seen an increasing
involvement of voluntary organizations in this sector,
with the governance of welfare often being channelled
through quasi-networks rather than quasi-markets
(Entwistle and Martin, 2005; Powell and Exworthy,
2002). One might even argue that the British system
has imitated the more traditional German model in
that the voluntary sector has been given a status sur-
passing its institutional standing in the postwar settle-
ment. As for France, there is a similar move towards
the German model insofar as the often more informal
cooptation of the voluntary sector by the postwar
welfare state has given way to formalized collabora-
tion, with a new range of voluntary organizations
becoming partners in reform (Ullmann, 1998). With
regard to Germany, some have argued that the old
corporatist regime has in many places withstood the
agenda of New Public Management, with welfare
associations realizing economies of scale or accepting
less comfortable, albeit still corporatist contracts
(e.g. Heinze, 2002: 11026). Thus we seem to be more
than ever in an organized welfare mix.
On inspection of the evidence from both the
wider literature and from case-studies conducted by
the author of this article, however, a multifaceted
agenda of transformation crystallizes when regard-
ing the above-mentioned dimensions: the embed-
dedness of welfare providing organizations in their
political and civic environments; the very terms of
trade governing the relations between voluntary
agencies and public bodies; and the character of
civic engagement. The transformation mirrors the
way in which voluntary organizations of the social
welfare sector currently handle their environmental
relations. It materializes in practices of resource and
communication management, both of which are
indicative of changing modes of coordination within
this sector. This is illustrated by the subsequent sec-
tions which portray major evolutions in two social
welfare areas: care for the elderly and support to
groups threatened by social exclusion.
New patterns of resource management
The way voluntary agencies involved with social
welfare provision manage their resources is a good
indicator of how the governance of welfare (mixes)
is changing. As regards the related challenges, two
dimensions are of crucial importance. First, this
resource management depends on strategies of public
sponsors and on related funding procedures. Second,
it connects with the relationship to non-statutory
stakeholders, especially groups active in civil society.
As to the first dimension, procedures of public funding
are changing in the social welfare sector of many
countries.
In Britain, numerous voluntary organizations in
the social welfare sector confront performance-based,
short-term contract policies deployed by public bodies.
While the terms of funding vary from one territory to
another, research on initiatives in favour of disadvan-
taged or homeless people has shown that there is con-
siderable discontinuity in the flow of public resources
to voluntary organizations. Short term patterns of
350 Bode
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
funding and inter-agency rivalry (Cloke, 2002: 156,
159) seem to be widespread. Roche (2004: 762) identi-
fies a culture of short-termism in policy provision, but
also attempts to stabilize inter-agency relations and
contracting procedures in some places. As to care for
the elderly, competitive structures prevail in many
places, though the contract policies of local authorities
prove highly heterogeneous (e.g. Forder et al., 2004;
Kendall et al., 2003 for the case of domiciliary provi-
sion). Especially small-sized services are subject to spot
contracting. Voluntary agencies which face an ever-
growing for-profit sector
8
find their organizational
domains can no longer to be taken for granted. At the
same time, however, they are invited to participate in
loose partnership projects through which they achieve
some core funding, especially in day care provision.
The reaction to all of this is the development of new
approaches to resource management. Organizations
such as Age Concern use a more flexible workforce,
create innovative (e.g. respite care) projects in response
to new funding streams, and deploy strategies to
enter an expanding market for old age provision.
Coincidently, they try to maintain and to develop
longer-term partnerships with public bodies where this
is on offer (Bode, 2004: 21319). Newcomers to
the field of anti-exclusion policies, such as The Big
Issue an organization giving homeless people a fran-
chise for selling a magazine, and offering them further
integrative services (Swithinbank, 2001) perceive
themselves to be innovative social enterprises which
both join up with public bodies and bid for contracts
from them. Other organizations take a similar route.
Many of them skilfully manage to informally circum-
vent procedural norms set by contracts with local
authorities (Aiken, 2002).
In France, fully-fledged welfare markets hardly exist.
However, funding procedures and related modes of
coordination are evolving in some places. Thus, a
certain number of social projects run by voluntary
organizations underlie quasi-competition. Projects
fighting homelessness are a good example (Bode, 2004:
18692; Damon, 2002a). Public authorities in Paris
fund voluntary agencies engaging in new outreach
services. As their own infrastructure of social support
has proved insufficient, they have invited civil society-
based organizations to run temporary measures of
poor relief, for example, during winter time. Funding
has become based on year-to-year contracts, and all
voluntary agencies can bid for these. In practice, there
is much continuity in these short-term partnerships;
yet long-term guarantees are not on offer. Quasi-
competitive structures also exist in the field of occupa-
tional integration where a huge number of so-called
social enterprises have been founded throughout the
last two decades (Eme and Gardin, 2002). In this field,
the state pays subsidies to largely self-funding organi-
zations which provide temporary employment and
social support for the long-term jobless. Any initiative
may qualify for a public acknowledgement which is a
prerequisite for receiving subsidies. Regarding care for
the elderly, voluntary providers involved in personal
care provision have faced a rising number of inde-
pendent workers as competitors. These are employed
directly by the frail elderly (or their families), on the
basis of tax advantages granted to their employers
(Enjolras and Laville, 2001; Nogus, 2003). With the
recent injection of additional public money (Cour des
Comptes, 2005: 13571; Roth, 2004), voluntary agen-
cies now experience some greater shelter from entre-
preneurial risks, but also a growing interest among
private sector competitors to engage in this market. As
in Britain, agencies react on all this by developing new
resource management strategies. The aim is both to
search for new partnerships with public actors (e.g. in
the development of professional standards) and to
market their service portfolio to an increasingly anony-
mous user group (Bode, 2004: 17884). Agencies pro-
viding personal care have developed new routines of
marketing their services, for example through super-
market-like service shops or through building joint
ventures with private investors. Provider networks run
call centres which direct callers not only to their cor-
porate member organizations, but also to their com-
mercial partners (e.g. insurance companies).
In the field of combating social exclusion, the
approach of the aforementioned social enterprises is
also influenced by a market rationale. Many of these
enterprises compete on volatile markets for recycled
goods. At the same time, they try to stay on good
terms with local public bodies which make the final
decision over the inclusion of a given enterprise into
the list of organizations entitled to subsidies, thereby
softening the competitive pressure on the field.
In Germany, too, New Public Management has left
its hallmark on funding procedures and inter-agency
coordination (Bnker and Wollmann, 2000). The
change of the contract system is incremental, though.
Some fields of the social welfare sector are already
widely exposed to (quasi-)market pressures while in
others such as child care marketization is confined
Disorganized welfare mixes 351
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
to local pilot schemes (Evers et al., 2005). Regarding
care for the elderly and social support to excluded
persons, transformative tendencies come clearly to
the fore. Smaller agencies, in particular, now live
with irregular and scattered funding streams (Bode,
2003b). One example is initiatives combating social
exclusion through work integration. Agencies receive
public subsidies which do not fully cover the incurred
expenses and have to be complemented by various
lump-sums or project funding, and also by revenue
from sales and services (Bode et al., 2006). Numerous
newly founded non-residential facilities for homeless
people are in a similar situation. Subsidies are often
granted through pilot programmes run for a limited
period of time, with the subsidized agencies being
expected to subsequently take over the burden. In
domiciliary care for the elderly, for-profit and non-
profit providers compete in an open market, with
each subgroup holding half of it at present. The
(public part of the) funding stems from the long-term
care insurance, on the basis of direct payments (in dif-
ferent forms, see Roth and Reichert, 2004). These can
be used to pay a relative, but also to buy services from
independent providers who, in addition, offer a range
of non-reimbursed services. Voluntary agencies provide
some additional bits of light personal care, often with
a temporary remit from local authorities. It is notable
that the central government has recently run pilot pro-
grammes funding innovative initiatives for improving
cross-agency networking and add-up services. Thus
competitive coordination and inter-agency coopera-
tion are endorsed in parallel.
As a result, non-profit care providers have revised
their practice. Many try to protect their organiza-
tional core by bringing their know-how to bear when
negotiating the terms of commissioning and invest-
ments in innovative projects (such as homes for the
terminally ill or community projects for people
affected by dementia) with funding bodies. A further
strategy is to build joint ventures allowing for eco-
nomies of scale. This option is available to a lesser
degree for smaller organizations engaging in social
support to disadvantaged people. These agencies per-
manently have to rearrange their service portfolio and
the related funding streams. As in the two other coun-
tries, and across service fields, many organizations
are keen to develop unique selling points and to
invest in project marketing vis-a-vis public bodies,
while simultaneously striving for deliberative rela-
tionships with the latter.
As regards the second dimension of the agencies
resource management their linkage to the wider
societal environment change is underway, too. Non-
statutory welfare providers face an increasing volatil-
ity of both formal and informal stakeholder support
which makes them reshape their links to civil society.
Fundraising has become a general requirement for
organizational development or even survival, espe-
cially where the mobilization of voluntary stakeholder
inputs proved critical in the postwar settlement. While
these inputs continue to flow in some places (e.g. the
provision of low-threshold services to the frail elderly
in small-sized settings), many voluntary organizations
which previously relied on a loyal milieu of donors
and volunteers have now to compete in civil markets
in order to raise the resources required for their work.
This is most evident for British, French and German
projects combating homelessness and social exclusion
(Bode, 2004; Le Crom and Retire, 2003; Salmon,
1998). Newly founded French initiatives in this field
exist with volatile patterns of volunteering. The tem-
porary involvement of students, for example, is
indicative of the stock of helping hands which is
becoming restructured. Furthermore, the enrolment of
volunteers is increasingly managed by special depart-
ments, or agencies, applying business-like methods
(assessment procedures, on-the-spot recruitment etc.).
In Germanys social welfare sector, a growing number
of brokering agencies have appeared in response to an
undersupply of new volunteers (Ebert et al., 2002).
9
At the same time, services requiring continual support
from volunteers increasingly depend on low-paid
professionals and people on apprenticeship. The same
holds for Britain where a decline of long-term volun-
teering (especially among the younger generation) has
been found (Davis Smith, 1998). This is consistent
with the widely observed development from collective
to reflexive volunteering (Hustinx and Lammerty,
2003). The result is a more active but also more pre-
carious management of volunteer inputs into non-
statutory welfare.
New patterns of communication
management
Alongside changed patterns of resource management,
new expectations on the accountability of providers
have surfaced. Stakeholders on quasi- and civil markets
demand value for money. Organizations in the social
welfare sector complain about new requirements on
352 Bode
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
documentation. Funding bodies and donors expect
detailed records on results, work processes and the
providers properties, across countries.
10
This corre-
sponds to a narrowing of the traditional avenues to polit-
ical exchange with governments and administrations.
11
Lobbying behind closed doors or through corporatist
negotiation appears less promising. As performance and
legitimacy in the social welfare sector is controversial,
there are new challenges for the management of com-
munications on which provider organizations try to
react. Again, two dimensions can be distinguished:
public relations and political campaigning.
Public relations departments have become a must
for many agencies in the social welfare sector. In
Britain, fundraising is ever more accompanied by
aggressive communications (Halfpenny and Reid,
2002: 534). For many voluntary organizations, more-
over, the demonstration of innovative and successful
practices vis-a-vis public bodies has become a mar-
keting exercise (Osborne, 1998: 155). The afore-
mentioned example of The Big Issue is indicative of
new ways of advertising a social cause by selling a
mass media journal all over the country. In France,
similar projects have been set up (Barats, 1996).
Across service fields, fundraising through mass com-
munication has become a standard management tool,
too (Pascal, 1999; Vaccaro, 1996). Organizations
supporting homeless and disadvantaged people
such as Catholic charities (Bode, 2003a) work hard
to achieve media coverage, with a view to increasing
fundraising opportunities. Social marketing strategies
also proliferate where voluntary organizations offer
personal care (Bode, 2004: 18291). Things are not
so different in Germany. Sweet charity has become
highly mediatized (Baringhorst, 1997), while public
relations are now a key issue in the consultancy liter-
ature (e.g. GEP, 2004). Also, advertising of care for
the elderly services has become widespread.
Interestingly, far from crowding out the political
dimension of voluntary action (which is often
assumed to decline with more quasi-market depend-
ence), the new communicative efforts frequently
include stronger and more aggressive political cam-
paigning. The case of France is most outstanding, with
anti-poverty organizations taking centre stage in the
public sphere (Salmon, 1998; Ullmann, 1998).
Groups representing homeless people have organized
impressive demonstrations (Damon, 2002b). Even
more traditional charities such as the faith-based
Secours catholique run professional campaigns
blaming society for tolerating poverty, and are
demanding more solidaristic social policies. Voluntary
agencies of the handicapped and those involved in
care for the elderly have organized huge public meet-
ings to express their demands. The voluntary sector in
Britain has a more long-standing experience in politi-
cal campaigning. Organizations such as The Big Issue
or Shelter (which combat homelessness) or Age
Concern (which fights discrimination against the
elderly) are good examples of voluntary agencies
political role (Aiken, 2002; Vincent et al., 2001:
4150). Kendall (2003: 176) states that voluntary
sector advocacy for and by older people in the UK has
grown in recent years. In Germany, the welfare asso-
ciations have run several anti-poverty campaigns
throughout the 1990s (Pabst, 1996). At the regional
level, they have also powerfully campaigned for a
quality-enhancing regulatory framework in the field
of care for the elderly (Bode, 2004: 1489).
Yet throughout the three countries, many cam-
paigns focus on single and fashionable issues, the
resonance of which is relatively unstable. Initiatives
against poverty flourish when homeless people suffer
from wintry weather conditions. Campaigning for
better regulations on quality standards in care for the
elderly finds a stronger echo when the media report
on mistreatment of clients. In the case of favourable
circumstances, however, the communication strat-
egies of voluntary agencies exert pressure on govern-
ments, with this pertaining not just to legislation but
also to the terms of trade in the contract business.
A multifaceted process of disorganization
The inspection of evolutionary dynamics through the
lens of organizational reengineering uncovers the
reality of change in the governance of welfare across
Western Europe. This concerns all the characteristics
emblematic of the postwar settlement: system-wide
coordination via negotiated publicprivate part-
nerships; the cooperative relations of non-statutory
provider organizations with both the welfare state
and civil society; and finally the loyal support of civic
stakeholders for the voluntary agencies involved.
After an era of organized welfare mixes, the social
welfare sector undergoes a multifaceted process of
disorganization. In the first place, the tendency
towards cooperative steering based on mutual agree-
ments is broken, as the new funding procedures and
the providers reactions illustrate. With the loosening
Disorganized welfare mixes 353
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
of publicprivate partnerships, organizational
operations are required and broadly accepted to
be flexible in principle. Voluntary agencies are set
under pressure by managerial states that (more or less
vigorously) demand (measurable) short-term per-
formance and hand over activities on economically
self-sustaining agencies. As a more market-oriented
mode of coordination proliferates in many instances,
these agencies process rapid organizational change.
Yet Jessop (2002: 34) rightly argues that one sole
governance mechanism will often fail to achieve what
is expected, in turn provoking a repeated pattern of
failed attempts to resolve problems through promot-
ing first one, then another form of governance. The
result is an unstable system of governance, requiring
intense political and organisational effort to keep it
from splitting apart (Clarke, 2004: 125). There is
indeed evidence for hybrid partnerships embracing a
network-like or deliberative mode of coordination.
Such partnerships, however, are unevenly organized,
potentially precarious, and contingent upon how they
connect with local market configurations.
From the perspective of voluntary agencies, their
relation to public bodies is disorganized in the sense
that they continue to extensively interact with them,
albeit on unstable grounds (programme shifts, short-
term funding, competitive contract management etc.).
As a result, everyday management often runs by ad
hoc planning, continuous risk taking, and strategies
centred on short-term outputs. The political voice of
the agencies remains potentially relevant but this par-
ticular mode of coordination is less firmly anchored
within the social policy establishment than in the past.
Participation in the policy process no longer entails
influence by routine, and the status of major civil
society-based provider organizations as an expert or a
preferred partner is under permanent scrutiny. This
status has now to be relentlessly reconquered by pur-
poseful action, including intensive public relations.
This also is a reflection of the agencies experiencing
a growing distance to civil society. On the one hand,
the required professionalism in resource and commu-
nication management tends to exclude civic actors
from the steering processes of these organizations. On
the other hand, it becomes in many places more diffi-
cult for the latter to recruit a reliable volunteer work-
force at the grassroots level. Most agencies can no
longer take the support of such stakeholders for
granted. Rather, the quest for reputation in civic envi-
ronments has become an everyday contest. This also
pertains to the mobilization of donations. Many
voluntary agencies now compete in civil markets
where smart just-in-time projects are in much more
demand than complex interventions with unknown
or non-measurable outcomes. Non-profit agencies
involved in the social welfare sector to some extent
deal with butterfly activists, that is, groups of volun-
teers who commit themselves to the short term and for
a particular project. This may imply new and extraor-
dinary personal investments but also the risk of overly
critical attitudes and sudden withdrawal. Civic action
has on the whole become more fluid, sporadic and dis-
persed, regardless of the degree to which the entire
sector is subject to market pressures, as the case of
France (where this pressure is less developed) reveals
best. This disorganization of civic involvement chal-
lenges those who make out a new and sustainable
wave of voluntary self-organization in contemporary
welfare states (e.g. Evers and Laville, 2004: 305).
That said, the strategies of many voluntary agencies
are indicative of increasing creativity. The establish-
ment of innovative projects for elderly people, the
mushrooming of homeless-newspaper businesses and
of out-bound services for rough sleepers, or the rise
of initiatives for work integration, all bear witness to
this. Today, voluntary agencies are obliged to cre-
atively destroy and to invent. The disorganization of
external relations requires restless adaptation because
arrangements may easily shift from one mode of coor-
dination to another, for example, from quasi-market
relations to network regulations and vice versa.
Equally, the economic situation of voluntary agencies
may rapidly alter. Depending on the development of
their service portfolio, penury may rapidly follow
affluence. Provider agencies may win additional con-
tracts, may temporarily succeed in fundraising, or may
find new avenues to economies of scale. Yet they are
never sure to preserve their business, and investments
in new projects often prove hazardous. Opportunity
structures are highly localized and contingent upon
accidental factors. Thus permanent creativity is the
counterpart of potential failure.
Conclusion: disorganized welfare mixes
and their consequences
The preceding analysis illustrates that the disorganiza-
tion of the political economy of Western European
societies goes alongside a creeping disorganization of
their social welfare sector, with a changing role of
354 Bode
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
voluntary agencies as a result. A new governance
regime is taking shape across all countries under study
here, irrespective of persisting national specificities.
It materializes in changing approaches of provider
organizations, which are altering their resource man-
agement (in order to cope with the discontinuity in the
flow of both public and civic resources), as well as
their communication strategies (with the proliferation
of social marketing and public relations, and with a
new accent on political agency). During the 20th
century, the three countries had all seen a common
development into governance regimes exhibiting a
tight coupling of civil society and the welfare state in
(a) the process of planning, providing and supervising
social services; (b) system-wide coordination via nego-
tiated publicprivate partnerships; and (c) a milieu-
based, firm involvement of civic stakeholders in
voluntary action. Now, they are in a state of continu-
ous dis- and reorganization. What we see are disor-
ganized welfare mixes, with a growing distance
between voluntary agencies and both the welfare state
and civil society; with more volatile publicprivate
partnerships; and with a dispersed involvement of vol-
unteers and donors. Presumably, both the cultural
trend towards individualization reflected by ever
more capricious stakeholders in civil society and the
economic reality of disorganized capitalism underlie
the current recasting of the social welfare sector.
It stands to reason that this has an impact on the very
production of social welfare. The overall result is
twofold. On the one hand, the new regime leaves
greater room for creativity and local innovations,
hence for meeting contemporary needs or reinventing
routines. In cases where agencies find the right way to
save money, manage to generate new synergies or
succeed in political campaigning, it becomes possible
to offer new solutions to acute social problems. On
the other hand, however, social welfare provision is
becoming (more) heterogeneous as a principle. New
Public Management generates a loss of resources
where providers achieve poor results, as opposed to a
pay-off for the winners. This entails a growing per-
formance differential within the social welfare sector as
well as systematically varying conditions for delivering
services. The same effect occurs where civic support
becomes contingent upon the attractiveness of pro-
social initiatives (their target groups, their methods,
their response to media fashions etc.). Moreover, the
local management of resources and communication
becomes critical for the quality of service delivery even
though organizational performance also depends on
unmanageable contexts. The empowerment of the
homeless, for instance, is often contingent upon oppor-
tunities in civil markets out of organizational control.
It holds true that publicprivate partnerships in social
welfare have always allowed for quality gaps and
uneven results in service provision; now, however,
these gaps are systematically induced by the gover-
nance regime.
Having said that, social needs remain a key reference
for the actors involved. A disorganized welfare mix is
market-driven to some extent, yet it does not lead to
the predominance of crude market logics. First of all,
public bodies still keep an option to deliberatively
negotiate rather than merely bargain the terms of
cooperation, and sometimes they are compelled to do
so because of political pressure (including from cam-
paigns run by voluntary sector organizations) or
because their partners know-how is indispensable. In
addition, many voluntary agencies are searching for
third ways between pure market opportunism and
their previous strategies based on firm alliances with
the welfare state. In the care for the elderly field, they
invest in networking, lobbying for better quality, adver-
tising for their comparative advantage over profit-
seeking providers, and developing projects which
attract stakeholders with an interest in resolving social
problems. Initiatives in favour of the homeless and
the socially excluded market their projects in order
to appeal to altruism rather than to economic self-
interest. Hence, one cannot conclude that voluntary
agenciesas Estes and Alford (1990: 190) put it some
time ago in their analysis of the North American case
by acting more businesslike, necessarily contribute to
their own de-legitimation as a unique sector deserving
of the special privileges associated with giving, volun-
teering, and not-for-profit initiative.
Rather, disorganized welfare mixes exhibit a fuzzy
character. As organizations perform differently, being
courageous in one place and opportunistic in another,
from being innovative here and conservative there,
from being successful in one period and failing in
another, no one, including the makers of voluntary
agencies themselves, contests the new governance
regime in principle. The public may note that outcomes
are uneven, ranging from excellence on the one hand to
voluntary failure (Salamon, 1987) on the other hand,
resulting in a zero sum polarization, as Perri6 (2003:
253) has put it with reference to Britain. However, all
stakeholders clients, customers, donors, politicians,
Disorganized welfare mixes 355
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
movements, political entrepreneurs and others are
inclined to take bad performance as a consequence of
local mismanagement while simultaneously assuming
that viable alternatives that is, better performing
organizations exist. This, however, makes a disor-
ganized welfare mix immune to critics and helps to
stabilize governance regimes although the latter cease
to favour winwin situations in the interplay of civil
society and the welfare state.
Notes
1 This includes the EU bureaucracy. In Germany, the co-
governance rhetoric has proliferated with an emphasis on
civic micro-initiatives rather than voluntary agencies per se
which often have been gauged as being over-bureaucratic
(see Jann and Wegrich, 2004). In the French-speaking
scientific community, the notion of gouvernance is less
obviously linked to issues of marketization or the volun-
tary sector, and more associated with the technical design
of intra-state relationships (Sedjari, 2004). Partnership-
based welfare provision has nonetheless become very
fashionable in France (Ullmann, 1998).
2 Many private entrepreneurs from this field have an ideo-
logical background in voluntary sector provision this is
the case in Germany or in public service provision, as in
the British care for the elderly sector.
3 The case-studies were covering networks of service
providers and, for each of them, one local unit (in London
and Manchester, Paris and Essen). The networks studied
included a regional welfare association in Germany
(Ruhrcaritas); a leading national federation of voluntary
personal care services (Association daide domicile en
milieu rural) and one big charity in France (Secours
catholique, with several of its branches); as well as Age
Concern England and The Big Issue in the North. As
regards methods, a range of semi-structured interviews
focusing on the development of the organizations envi-
ronmental relations have been conducted, paralleled by a
broad analysis of organizational documents. The article
also draws on evidence from a European Project on
social enterprises in the field of work integration (Bode
et al., 2006; Nyssens, 2006).
4 The notion addresses formalized cooperative relations
between public authorities and independent provider
organizations. The latter may also be commercial firms
(e.g. in the case of the more recent private partnership
initiatives in the British health sector). Yet the crucial
point here is that the partners have a private status
from a juridical point of view.
5 The term corporatism generally refers to a particular
system of interest intermediation (typically in industrial
relations) where organizations based on voluntary
membership negotiate public policies. It has, however,
been applied to the social welfare sector, too.
6 The same can be said about Nordic countries where non-
profit organizations for a long time concentrated on
advocacy and lobby functions. Thus, they became heavily
involved with the political governance of the social
welfare sector (see Lindstrm and Swedberg, 2003).
7 Where several voluntary organizations were deliver-
ing the same kind of services on a given territory,
supply frequently was divided into fixed case-loads,
often according to ideological allegiances.
8 In 2002, independent providers delivered two-thirds of
service hours (in personal care). The voluntary sector
which represents one-fifth of these providers (but is
much more involved in day care provision) has hardly
been expanding during the 1990s, while small business
owners have captured the lions share of the newly
emerging (quasi-)market (Kendall, 2003: 15985). But
one should keep in mind that the use of simple sectoral
distinctions such as the voluntaryprivate dichotomy is
not without problems (Forder et al., 2004: 9).
9 The shortage of volunteers is a concern expressed in
various discourses held at the level of provider or
network organizations (e.g. Bock, 2000).
10 To date, however, this output-oriented governance is
more extensively employed in Britain than in France
and Germany.
11 According to key actors from the provider networks
investigated by Bode (2004).
References
Aiken, M. (2002) Managing Values: the Reproduction of
Organisational Values in Social Economy Organisa-
tions, unpublished PhD thesis, Open University, Milton
Keynes, UK.
Anheier, H. K. and Seibel, W. (2001) The Nonprofit Sector
in Germany. Between State, Economy and Society.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Anttonen, A., Baldock, J. and Sipil, J. (2003) The Young,
the Old and the State. Social Care Systems in Five
Industrial Nations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Archambault, E. (2001) Historical Roots of the Nonprofit
Sector in France, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly 30 (2): 20420.
Argoud, D. (1992) LUNIOPPS: un ministre priv des
affaires sociales?, Revue franaise des affaires sociales,
46 (3): 93104.
Ascoli, U. and Ranci, C. (2002) Dilemmas of the Welfare
Mix. The New Structure of Welfare in an Era of
Privatization. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.
Bahle, T. (2003) The Changing Institutionalization of
Social Services in England and Wales, France and
Germany: Is the Welfare State on the Retreat?, Journal
of European Social Policy 13 (1): 520.
Barats, C. (1996) La presse franaise des sans-domicile-fixe,
Mots 46 (3): 5581.
Baringhorst, S. (1997) Sweet Charity. Zum moralischen
Ethos zeitgenssischer Sozialkampagnen, in U. Rttgers
(ed.) PR-Kampagnen. ber die Inszenierung von
ffentlichkeit. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Bec, C. (1994) Assistance Rpublique. La recherche dun
nouveau contrat social sous la IIIe Rpublique. Paris:
ditions de lAtelier.
356 Bode
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Belle Hansen, M. and Lauridsen, J. (2004) The Institutional
Context of Market Ideology: a Comparative Analysis of
the Values and Perceptions of Local Government CEOs
in 14 OECD Countries, Public Administration 82 (2):
491524.
Birkinshaw, P., Harden, I. and Lewis, N. (1990) Government
by Moonlight: the Hybrid Parts of the State. London:
Unwin Hyman.
Bock, T. (2000) Ehrenamtliches Engagement in der
Caritas, in A. Zimmer and S. Nhrlich (eds) Engagierte
Brgerschaft. Traditionen und Perspektiven, Opladen:
Leske & Budrich.
Bode, I. (2003a) The Creeping Disorganisation of Welfare
Capitalism. The Future of the Social Sector in
Germany, Review of Social Economy, 56 (3): 34163.
Bode, I. (2003b) Flexible Response in Changing Environ-
ments. The German Third Sector in Transition, Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33 (2): 190210.
Bode, I. (2003c) A New Agenda for European Charity.
Catholic Welfare and Organisational Change in France
and Germany, Voluntas 14 (2): 20525.
Bode, I. (2004) Disorganisierter Wohlfahrtskapitalismus.
Die Reorganisation des Sozialsektors in Deutschland,
Frankreich und Grobritannien. Wiesbaden: Verlag fr
Sozialwissenschaften.
Bode, I. and Evers, A. (2004) From Institutional Fixation
to Entrepreneurial Mobility? The German Third Sector
and its Contemporary Challenges, in A. Evers and J-L.
Laville (eds) The Third Sector in Europe. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Bode, I., Evers, A. and Schulz, A. D. (2006) Where do We
Go from Here? The Unfinished Story of Relations
Between Social Enterprises and Public Policies in
Germany, in M. Nyssens (ed.) Social Enterprises.
Between Markets, Public Policies and Community,
pp. 296309. London: Routledge.
Boltanski, L. and Chiapello, E. (1999) Le nouvel esprit du
capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard.
Bnker, F. and Wollmann, H. (2000) The Rise and Fall of
a Social Service Regime. Marketisation of German Social
Services in Historical Perspective, in H. Wollmann and
E. Schroeter (eds) Comparing Public Sector Reform in
Britain and Germany. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Boyer, R. (2005) How and Why Capitalisms Differ,
Economy and Society 34 (4): 50937.
Brandsen, T. (2004) Quasi-market Governance. An Anatomy
of Innovation. Utrecht: Lemma Publishers.
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society,
The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture,
Vol. 1. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Clarke, J. (2004) Changing Welfare, Changing States.
New Directions in Social Policy. London: Sage.
Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (1997) The Managerial State.
Power, Politics and Ideology in the Remaking of Social
Welfare. London: Sage.
Cloke, P. (2002) Rural Homelessness: Issues, Experiences
and Policy Responses. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Cour des Comptes (2005) Les personnes ges dpen-
dantes. Rapport au Prsident de la Rpublique suivi des
rponses des administrations et des organismes intresss.
Paris.
Daly, M. (2003) Governance and Social Policy, Journal
of Social Policy 32 (1): 11328.
Damon, J. (2002a) La question SDF: Critique dune action
publique. Paris : Presses universitaires de France.
Damon, J. (2002b) Les mobilisations et protestations col-
lectives en faveur des SDF: quelques jalons dans lhistoire
rcente, Revue franaise des affaires sociales 56 (2):
922.
Davis Smith, J. (1998) Volunteering in the UK Some
Findings from a New National Survey, in Charities Aid
Foundation (ed.) Dimensions of the Voluntary Sector.
Tonbridge: Charities Aid Foundation.
Dixon, J. and Kouzmin, A. (2001) The Market Appropri-
ation of Statutory Social Security: Global Experiences
and Governance Issues, in J. Dixon and M. Hyde (eds) The
Marketization of Social Security. Westport, CT/London:
Quorum Books.
Ebbinghaus B. and Manow P. (eds)(2001) Comparing
Welfare Capitalism. Social Policy and Political
Economy in Europe, Japan and the USA. London:
Routledge.
Ebert, O., Hartnu, B., Rahn, E. and Schaaf-Derichs, C.
(2002) Freiwilligenagenturen in Deutschland. Ergebnisse
einer Erhebung der Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Freiwilli-
genagenturen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Eme, B. and Gardin, L. (2002) Les entreprises sociales
dinsertion par le travail en France, EMES Working
Paper WP 02/01. Lige.
Enjolras, B. and Laville, J-L. (2001) France: des services
locaux, associatifs et publics, confronts des rgles
nationales changeantes, in J-L. Laville and M. Nyssens
(eds) Les services sociaux entre associations, tat et
march. Laide aux personnes ges. Paris: La Dcouverte.
Entwistle, T. and Martin, S. (2005) From Competition
to Collaboration in Public Service Delivery: a New
Agenda for Research, Public Administration 83 (1):
23342.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare
Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Estes, C. and Alford, R. R. (1990) Systemic Crisis and the
Nonprofit Sector: Towards a Political Economy of the
Nonprofit Health and Social Services Sector, Theory
and Society 19 (2): 17398.
Evers, A. (1993) The Welfare Mix Approach. Understanding
the Pluralisms of Welfare States, in A. Evers and I. Svetlik
(eds) Balancing Pluralism. New Welfare Mixes in Care for
the Elderly. Aldershot: Avebury.
Evers, A. and Laville, J-L. (2004) Defining the Third
Sector in Europe, in A. Evers and J-L. Laville (eds) The
Third Sector in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Evers, A., Lewis, J. and Riedel, B. (2005) Developing Child-
care Provision in England and Germany: Problems of
Governance, Journal of European Social Policy 15 (3):
195209.
Forder, J., Knapp, M., Hardy, B., Kendall, J., Matosevic, T.
and Ware, P. (2004) Prices, Contracts and Motivations:
Institutional Arrangements in Domiciliary Care, Policy
& Politics 32 (2): 20722.
GEP (Gemeinschaftswerk der Evangelischen Publizistik)
(2004) ffentlichkeitsarbeit fr Nonprofit-Organisationen.
Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Disorganized welfare mixes 357
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Giaimo, S. (2002) Markets and Medicine. The Politics of
Health Care Reform in Britain, Germany and the United
States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Gilbert, N. (2002) Transformation of the Welfare State.
The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gremion, P. (1976) Le pouvoir priphrique. Bureaucrates
et notables dans le systme politique francaise. Paris:
ditions du Seuil.
Halfpenny, P. and Reid, M. (2002) Research on the
Voluntary Sector: an Overview, Policy & Politics 30 (4):
53350.
Heinze, R. G. (2002) Die Berliner Rterepublik. Viel Rat
wenig Tat? Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Hustinx, L. and Lammertyn, F. (2003) Collective and Reflex-
ive Styles of Volunteering: a Sociological Modernization
Perspective, Voluntas 14 (2): 16787.
Jann, W. and Wegrich, K. (2004) Governance und
Verwaltungspolitik, in A. Benz (ed.) Governance
Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Wiesbaden:
Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften.
Jessop, B. (1999) The Changing Governance of Welfare.
Recent Trends in its Primary Functions, Scale, and Modes
of Coordination, Social Policy & Administration 33 (4):
34859.
Jessop, B. (2002) Governance and Meta-governance in the
Face of Complexity: on the Roles of Requisite Variety,
Reflexive Observation, and Romantic Irony in Participa-
tory Governance in H. Heinelt, P. Getimis, G. Kafkalas,
R. Smith and E. Swyngedouw (eds) Particpatory Gover-
nance in Multi-level Context. Concepts and Experience.
Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Kaufmann, F-X. (2001) Towards a Theory of the Welfare
State, in S. Leibfried (ed.) Welfare State Futures.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kendall, J. (2003) The Voluntary Sector. London: Routledge.
Kendall, J., Matosevic, T., Forder, J., Knapp, M., Hardy, B.
and Ware, P. (2003) The Motivations of Domiciliary
Care Providers in England: New Concepts, New
Findings, Journal of Social Policy 32 (4): 489511.
Kooman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance. London: Sage.
Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1987) The End of Organised
Capitalism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Le Crom, J-P. and Retire, J-N. (2003) Nourrir les
pauvres: Assister et/ou entreprendre in L. Prouteau
(ed.) Les Associations entre bnvolat et logique den-
treprise. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.
Le Grand, J. (2003) Motivation, Agency, and Public
Policy: of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, J. (1995) The Voluntary Sector, the State and Social
Work in Britain. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Lindstrm, T. and Swedberg, L. (2003) The Voluntary
Sector in a Social Democratic Welfare State the Case
of Sweden, Journal of Social Policy, 32 (2): 21738.
Means, R. and Smith, R. (1998) From Poor Law to
Community Care. The Development of Welfare Services
for Elderly People 19391971 (2nd edn). Bristol: The
Polity Press.
Middleton, R. (2000) The British Economy since 1945:
Engaging with the Debate. Houndsmill/Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Newman, J. (2003) Modernising Governance. New Labour,
Policy and Society (3rd edn). London: Sage.
Nogus, H. (2003) De laide mnagre la PSD: les
avatars des prestations daide domicile, in C. Martin
(ed.) La dpendance des personnes ges. Quelles poli-
tiques en Europe? Rennes: ditions ENSP/Presses uni-
versitaires de Rennes.
Nyssens, M. (ed.) (2006) Social Enterprises. Between
Markets, Public Policies and Community. London:
Routledge.
Offe, C. (1985) Disorganised Capitalism. Contemporary
Transformations of Work and Politics. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Osborne, S. P. (1998) Voluntary Organisations and
Innovation in Public Services. London: Routledge.
Pabst, S. (1996) Sozialanwlte. Wohlfahrtsverbnde zwis-
chen Ideen und Interessen. Augsburg: Maro.
Pascal, F. (1999) Lassociation et largent, in F. Bloch-
Lain (ed.) Faire socit. Les associations au coeur du
social. Paris, Syros.
Perri6 (2003) Giving Consumers of British Public Services
More Choice: What Can Be Learned from Recent
History?, Journal of Social Policy 32 (2): 23970.
Powell, M. and Exworthy, M. (2002) Partnerships, Quasi-
networks and Social Policy, in C. Glenndinning, P.
Martin and K. Rummery (eds) Partnerships, New Labour
and the Governance of Welfare. Bristol: Polity Press.
Roche, M. (2004) Complicated Problems, Complicated
Solutions? Homelessness and Joined-up Policy Responses,
Social Policy & Administration 38 (7): 75874.
Roth, G. and Reichert, M. (2004) Providing Integrated
Health and Social Care for Older Persons in Germany,
in K. Leichsenring and A. Alaszewski (eds) Providing
Integrated Health and Social Care for Older Persons.
A European Overview of Issues at Stake. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Roth, N. (2004) La prise en charge de la dpendance: o
en sommes-nous?, Revue dconomie financire 76:
187208.
Salamon, L. M. (1987) Of Market Failure, Voluntary
Failure, and Third Party Government: Toward a Theory
of Government nonprofit Relations in the Modern
Welfare State, Journal of Voluntary Action Research
16 (1/2): 2949.
Salamon, L. M. and Anheier, H. K. (1998a) Social Origins
of Civil Society: Explaining the Nonprofit Sector Cross-
Nationally, Voluntas 9 (3): 21348.
Salamon, L. M. and Anheier, H. K. (1998b) The Third
Route: Governmentnonprofit Collaboration in Germany
and the United States, in W. W. Powell and E. S. Clemens
(eds) Private Action and the Public Good. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Salmon, J. M. (1998) Le dsir de socit: des restos au coeur
du mouvement des chmeurs. Paris, La Dcouverte.
Schmidt, V. A. (2002) The Futures of European Capitalism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sedjari, A. (ed.) (2004) Administration, gouvernance et
dcision publique. Paris : Harmattan/GRET.
Streeck ,W. (1997) German Capitalism. Does it Exist, Will
it Survive?, in C. Crouch and W. Streeck (eds) Political
Economy of Modern Capitalism. Mapping Convergence
and Diversity. London: Sage.
358 Bode
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Swithinbank, T. (2001) Coming Up from the Streets: the
Story of The Big Issue. London, Earthscan.
Taylor, M. (2002) Government, the Third Sector and the
Contract Culture: UK Experience So Far, in U. Ascoli
and C. Ranci (eds) Dilemmas of the Welfare Mix.
The New Structure of Welfare in an Era of Privatization.
New York/Boston, MA/Dordrecht/ London/ Moscow:
Kluwer/Plenum.
Ullmann, C. (1998) Partners in Reform: Nonprofit
Organisations and the Welfare State in France, in
W. W. Powell and E. S. Clemens (eds) Private Action
and the Public Good. New Haven, CT/London: Yale
University Press.
Vaccaro, A. (1996) Les techniques modernes de collecte
de dons, in N. Dufourcq (ed.) L`argent du coeur. Paris:
Hermann.
Vincent, J. A., Patterson, G. and Wale, K. (2001) Politics
and Old Age. Older Citizens and Political Processes in
Britain. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Zimmer, A. (1999) Corporatism Revisited the Legacy of
History and the German Non-profit-Sector, Voluntas
10 (1): 3749.
Disorganized welfare mixes 359
Journal of European Social Policy 2006 16 (4)
at University of Leicester Library on March 12, 2012 esp.sagepub.com Downloaded from