You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items

  • Author or Editor: Signy Irene Vabo x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Asbjørn Røiseland and Signy Irene Vabo

With an increase in self-governance arrangements and civic initiatives, a new channel for citizen participation has developed in addition to traditional representative democracy. In Chapter 6, Røiseland and Vabo argue that large parts of the theoretical literature tend to see self-governance and civic initiatives as a fruitful and welcomed expansion of democracy, presuming classic representative democracy and newer forms of civic initiatives can go hand in hand. However, from the perspective of political leadership theory, it is not obvious that representation and direct participation can be linked together in any easy way. Some would even argue that there is a deep and insoluble tension between the two models of participation. This chapter elaborates on this possible tension by developing a typology of possible outcomes of different kinds of interactive governance, providing empirical examples from urban governance research. Røiseland and Vabo also discuss how the possible gap between representation and direct participation can be diminished.

Open access

Bettina Leibetseder, Anneli Anttonen, Einar Øverbye, Charles Pace and Signy Irene Vabo

Welfare pluralism, in its initial conceptualisation, sought to bring together the best welfare providers, including families and the community, while lowering expenditures. Ideally, a plurality of providers would ensure better quality, consumer choice, and universal but at the same time more individualized services. In this chapter, we raise questions about recent transformations in the welfare mix, which we call the ‘re-mix’ of social care, based on the empirical material shared within the COST Action IS1102, which points to a high degree of disarray. Compared to earlier decades that had witnessed a stable or growing level of state intervention, the current re-mixing among service providers is characterized by fragmentation and differentiation, while there is no attempt to address the question of how best to provide social care. In the end, we argue that: (1) the current organisation of care services is reinforcing inequalities between less and more affluent users; (2) the current division of responsibility in the provision, regulation and financing of care services is favouring for-profit and self-employed caregivers, without enabling collaboration and synergies among providers; (3) the current re-mixes are hindering both equality among service providers and universal provision.