Search results

To clarify the core characteristics of Nordic activation policies in the context of typologies of European activation governance.

The paper analyses activation governance in the light of the basic values and beliefs behind the formation of the Nordic social protection systems in the mid‐20th century. Recent model‐building efforts see the Nordic countries as being close to a “universalistic” and egalitarian type of activation policy that does not systematically submit citizens to work requirements. The authors ask whether this model captures the actual scope and contents of Nordic activation governance.

The Nordic countries‐based relatively generous income security systems on a strong work ethic and ambitions to maximise labour market participation of the working‐age population. Citizens's rights to income security were generally linked to the fulfilment of work requirements. Although this active governance of unemployed citizens eroded in the 1970s and 1980s all the Nordic countries revived it after 1990. Largely reflecting the dual structure of the income protection system, Nordic active approaches to activation are not egalitarian.

Nordic countries are currently implementing major administrative reforms in social protection, possibly creating more unified and egalitarian governance of activation. Future research needs to assess the impact of these reforms.

The article presents an analysis of activation policies that so far has been missing from comparative research and that will be of particular value for non‐Nordic readers who may have received a biased view of Nordic activation policies.

This editorial aims to introduce the first of a set of two special issues on New modes of governance in activation policies.

The article explores the concept of governance, distinguishing a broad and more narrow use of the concept. Then, it argues that issues of governance should be an integral part of studies of welfare state transformations. Not in the last instance, because governance reforms do have an impact on the content of social policies and social services such as activation. The article continues by discussing three models of the provision of social services.

The article states that the development of the modes of governance in activation in various countries reveals that a mix of service provision models is being used.

The article introduces the articles of the special issue.

Many offenders struggle when attempting to reintegrate into society after release from prison, and the conditions they face after release often lead to reoffending. The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual model on reintegration after prison. The model has the potential to guide practitioners in their understanding of the relationships between welfare services and the agency of the offender.

The model was developed from a small-scale study in the Norwegian Criminal Justice system, which is well known for its emphasis on rehabilitation and crime prevention. Data collection aimed to explore the reintegration process from the perspective of the hard-to-reach and vulnerable population of serial offenders. Nine prisoners in two different prisons were interviewed. A thematic analysis identified two main themes that related, first, to the personal challenges the offenders faced in the rehabilitation and reintegration process and, second, to the factors in the welfare services that interacted with the prisoners’ psychosocial issues in the reintegration process.

Findings suggest that the interaction between the psychosocial needs of the prisoners and the organization of the welfare services is complex and does not harmonize. The findings underpin the argument that the current reintegration strategies for certain groups of inmates need to be questioned and challenged.

The model is a conceptual model intended to provide a lens from which to reinterpret offenders’ experiences of reintegration and applied to only the small and exploratory study described in this paper. As such, it requires further testing and substantiation, and the model and the study’s findings should be regarded as tentative and cannot be generalized to a larger population. The prisoners were selected by the first author for convenience, and it is possible that this also influenced the findings. Other inmates may have presented other experiences.

There are few studies looking into reintegration from the reoffenders’ perspective, and this study also presents a model that serves as a reflective and analytical tool to developing new approaches to supporting offenders in their reintegration into society from prison in the future.