Advanced search

Governing the third sector: new technologies, but also new alliances?

Els De Waele (UGent) and Lesley Hustinx (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
Since the end of the twentieth century it is increasingly becoming clear that modern welfare regimes are changing: alternative mentalities and modes of governing welfare are emerging (Jessop, 1999; Rose, 1996). In brief, literature reports on a shift from welfarism to post-welfarism, coming to expression through the emergence of a neoliberal governmentality (Peck & Tickell, 2002; Jessop, 1999, 2002), and interwoven with this, a transition in the mode of governing welfare, identified as a shift from an ‘organized’ welfare mix to a ‘disorganized’ welfare mix (Bode, 2006, 2012; Jessop, 1999, 2002). At the local level, these changes are translated in a new policy agenda which comes down to ‘government through community’ (Rose, 1996, 1999, 2000). Through a double movement of autonomization and responsibilization, the third sector is engaged in its own governance and expected to foster active citizenship (Rose, 1999; Ilcan & Basok, 2004). However, beyond this general diagnosis, little is known about how these tendencies are perceived and enacted as lived experiences by the third sector: do they reconcile with this policy agenda, or do they resist it? Informed by the Foucauldian governmentality perspective, we propose to see these recent policy changes at the local level as new ‘governing technologies’ to realign the third sector with the policy agenda of governing the population (Rose, 1999; Rose & Miller, 2010). Nevertheless, we assume that third sector actors are not mere passive recipients or enactors of this policy, but that they also actively intervene and align with their own stakes (cf. Rose, 1999; Rose & Miller, 2010). Therefore, taking the Flemish third sector (i.e. the third sector of the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) as a case, and based on evidence obtained through twenty-five in-depth interviews with key representatives of the third sector, we want to gain deeper insight in these new governmental technologies, in what ways they are developed, introduced or imposed to the third sector, and to what extent new alliances are forged and/or resisted by the third sector. More specifically, we want to detangle these complex processes of making governmental technologies work and not work, by looking at two key governing technologies operative in this context, namely ‘responsibilization’ and ‘participation’ (Schinkel & van Houdt, 2010). Bode, I. (2006). Disorganized welfare mixes: voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4): 346-359. Bode, I. (2012). Creeping marketization and post-corporatist governance: the transformation of state-nonprofit relations in continental Europe. In S.D. Phillips & S.R. Smith (Eds.). Governance and regulation in the third sector: international perspectives (pp.115-141). London: Routledge. Ilcan, S. & Basok, T. (2004). Community government: voluntary agencies, social justice, and the responsibilization of citizens. Citizenship Studies, 8(2): 129-144. Jessop, B. (1999). The changing governance of welfare: recent trends in its primary functions, scale, and modes of coordination. Social Policy and Administration, 33(4): 348-359. Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: a state-theoretical perspective. Antipode, 34(3): 452-472. Peck, J. & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3): 380-404. Rose, N. (1996). The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government. Economy and Society, 25(3): 327-356 Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: reframing political thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rose, N. (2000). Community, citizenship, and the third way. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(9): 1395-1411. Schinkel, W. & van Houdt, F. (2010). The double helix of cultural assimilationism and neo-liberalism: citizenship in contemporary governmentality. The British Journal of Sociology, 61(4):696-715.

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
De Waele, Els, and Lesley Hustinx. 2014. “Governing the Third Sector: New Technologies, but Also New Alliances?” In IPA Conference, Abstracts.
APA
De Waele, E., & Hustinx, L. (2014). Governing the third sector: new technologies, but also new alliances? IPA Conference, Abstracts. Presented at the IPA Conference.
Vancouver
1.
De Waele E, Hustinx L. Governing the third sector: new technologies, but also new alliances? IPA Conference, Abstracts. 2014.
MLA
De Waele, Els, and Lesley Hustinx. “Governing the Third Sector: New Technologies, but Also New Alliances?” IPA Conference, Abstracts. 2014. Print.
@inproceedings{5784801,
  abstract     = {Since the end of the twentieth century it is increasingly becoming clear that modern welfare regimes are changing: alternative mentalities and modes of governing welfare are emerging (Jessop, 1999; Rose, 1996). In brief, literature reports on a shift from welfarism to post-welfarism, coming to expression through the emergence of a neoliberal governmentality (Peck \& Tickell, 2002; Jessop, 1999, 2002), and interwoven with this, a transition in the mode of governing welfare, identified as a shift from an {\textquoteleft}organized{\textquoteright} welfare mix to a {\textquoteleft}disorganized{\textquoteright} welfare mix (Bode, 2006, 2012; Jessop, 1999, 2002). At the local level, these changes are translated in a new policy agenda which comes down to {\textquoteleft}government through community{\textquoteright} (Rose, 1996, 1999, 2000). Through a double movement of autonomization and responsibilization, the third sector is engaged in its own governance and expected to foster active citizenship (Rose, 1999; Ilcan \& Basok, 2004).\unmatched{0009}
\unmatched{0009}However, beyond this general diagnosis, little is known about how these tendencies are perceived and enacted as lived experiences by the third sector: do they reconcile with this policy agenda, or do they resist it?\unmatched{0009}
\unmatched{0009}Informed by the Foucauldian governmentality perspective, we propose to see these recent policy changes at the local level as new {\textquoteleft}governing technologies{\textquoteright} to realign the third sector with the policy agenda of governing the population (Rose, 1999; Rose \& Miller, 2010). Nevertheless, we assume that third sector actors are not mere passive recipients or enactors of this policy, but that they also actively intervene and align with their own stakes (cf. Rose, 1999; Rose \& Miller, 2010).\unmatched{0009}
\unmatched{0009}Therefore, taking the Flemish third sector (i.e. the third sector of the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) as a case, and based on evidence obtained through twenty-five in-depth interviews with key representatives of the third sector, we want to gain deeper insight in these new governmental technologies, in what ways they are developed, introduced or imposed to the third sector, and to what extent new alliances are forged and/or resisted by the third sector. More specifically, we want to detangle these complex processes of making governmental technologies work and not work, by looking at two key governing technologies operative in this context, namely {\textquoteleft}responsibilization{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}participation{\textquoteright} (Schinkel \& van Houdt, 2010).

Bode, I. (2006). Disorganized welfare mixes: voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4): 346-359.
Bode, I. (2012). Creeping marketization and post-corporatist governance: the transformation of state-nonprofit relations in continental Europe. In S.D. Phillips \& S.R. Smith (Eds.). Governance and regulation in the third sector: international perspectives (pp.115-141). London: Routledge.
Ilcan, S. \& Basok, T. (2004). Community government: voluntary agencies, social justice, and the responsibilization of citizens. Citizenship Studies, 8(2): 129-144.
Jessop, B. (1999). The changing governance of welfare: recent trends in its primary functions, scale, and modes of coordination. Social Policy and Administration, 33(4): 348-359.
Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: a state-theoretical perspective. Antipode, 34(3): 452-472.
Peck, J. \& Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3): 380-404.
Rose, N. (1996). The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government. Economy and Society, 25(3): 327-356
Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: reframing political thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, N. (2000). Community, citizenship, and the third way. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(9): 1395-1411.
Schinkel, W. \& van Houdt, F. (2010). The double helix of cultural assimilationism and neo-liberalism: citizenship in contemporary governmentality. The British Journal of Sociology, 61(4):696-715.},
  author       = {De Waele, Els and Hustinx, Lesley},
  booktitle    = {IPA Conference, Abstracts},
  language     = {eng},
  location     = {Wageningen},
  title        = {Governing the third sector: new technologies, but also new alliances?},
  year         = {2014},
}