Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:41:46.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Volunteer association perceptions of municipal policy strategies to promote co-production of healthy ageing services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2018

CHRISTIAN ELLING SCHEELE Open the ORCID record for CHRISTIAN ELLING SCHEELE [Opens in a new window] ,
KARSTEN VRANGBÆK  and
MARGIT KRIEGBAUM
CHRISTIAN ELLING SCHEELE*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Centre for Healthy Ageing, Centre for Health Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
KARSTEN VRANGBÆK
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Centre for Healthy Ageing, Centre for Health Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
MARGIT KRIEGBAUM
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Centre for Healthy Ageing, Centre for Health Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
*
Address for correspondence: Christian Elling Scheele, Department of Public Health, Centre for Healthy Ageing, University of Copenhagen, Oester Farimagsgade 5, 1054 Copenhagen K, Denmark E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Civic society voluntary associations promote healthy ageing by increasing older adults’ social and physical activity levels and through the co-production of services aimed at other senior citizens. Local governments are increasingly interested in collaborating with such associations as a policy response to an expanding ageing population. Co-production requires a flexible, network-based governance approach, which has not been examined from the voluntary associations’ point of view. This study explores how voluntary associations perceive the relevance and usefulness of public policies aimed at promoting co-production of services for ageing citizens. The study is based on quantitative data collected through a survey sent to 1,060 voluntary associations (N = 571) in three Danish municipalities. We also studied municipalities’ policies relevant to co-production of services aimed at senior citizens. We found that all of these policies included the explicit ambition of network governance of co-production of services targeted to address healthy ageing issues. However, our study indicates that the voluntary associations perceive the actual network governance to be somewhat fragmented and the corresponding scope of co-production was limited, which indicates the failure of municipalities to implement policy goals. Accordingly, municipal co-production in this area could probably benefit from the use of relevant key performance indicators that can enable political-administrative monitoring in order to secure deeper implementation and political accountability that promotes healthy ageing at the local level.

Keywords

co-productionhealthy ageingnetwork governancelocal government
Type
Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 39 , Issue 6 , June 2019 , pp. 1152 - 1171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, J. 2004. Co-governance for accountability: beyond ‘exit’ and ‘voice’. World Development, 32, 3, 447–63.Google Scholar
Andersen, N. A. 2011. Hybrid Forms of Governance: Self-suspension of Power. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. D., Damianakis, T., Kröger, E., Wagner, , Diedre, R., Dawson, M., Bernstein, S., Caspi, E. and Cook, S. 2014. The benefits associated with volunteering among seniors: a critical review and recommendations for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 6, 1505–33.Google Scholar
Boje, T. P., Fridberg, T. and Ibsen, B. 2006. Den frivillige sektor i Danmark. Omfang og betydning. The Danish National Centre for Social Research, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Bovaird, T. 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67, 5, 846–60.Google Scholar
Bovaird, T. and Loeffler, E. 2012. From engagement to co-production: the contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23, 4, 1119–38.Google Scholar
Brandsen, T. and Pestoff, V. 2006. Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services: an introduction. Public Management Review, 8, 4, 493–501.Google Scholar
Cahn, E. S. 2000. No More Throw-away People: The Co-production Imperative. Edgar Cahn, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Christensen, K., Doblhammer, G., Rau, R. and Vaupel, J. W. 2009. Ageing populations: the challenges ahead. The Lancet, 374, 9696, 1196–208.Google Scholar
Copenhagen Municipality 2015. Municipal Policies. Available online at http://www.kk.dk/indhold/politikker-og-indsatsomraader?nm_extag=et%2Clink%2CCFLB [Accessed 1 December 2015].Google Scholar
Dezeure, K. and De Rynck, F. 2013. ‘Don't bite the hand that feeds you?’ On the partnerships between. In Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T. and Vershuere, B. (eds), New Public Governance, the Third Sector, and Co-Production. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 7, 245–64.Google Scholar
Dulin, P. (ed.) 2017. Volunteering in older adults in retirement. In Encyclopedia of Geropsychology. Springer, New York, 1–7.Google Scholar
Entwistle, T. and Martin, S. 2005. From competition to collaboration in public service delivery: a new agenda for research. Public Administration, 83, 1, 233–42.Google Scholar
Erlinghagen, M. and Hank, K. 2006. The participation of older Europeans in volunteer work. Ageing & Society, 26, 4, 567–84.Google Scholar
Evers, A. 2006. Complementary and conflicting: the different meaning of ‘user involvement’ in social services. In Matthies, A.-L. (ed.), Nordic Civic Society Organisations and the Future of Welfare Services: A Model for Europe. TemaNord 517, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 255–76.Google Scholar
Hale, K. 2011. How Information Matters: Networks and Public Policy Innovation. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Hank, K. and Stuck, S. 2008. Volunteer work, informal help, and care among the 50+ in Europe: further evidence for ‘linked’ productive activities at older ages. Social Science Research, 37, 4, 1280–91.Google Scholar
Henriksen, L. S., Boje, T. and Ibsen, B. 2008. Welfare architecture and voluntarism. In Osborne, S. P. (ed.), The Third Sector in Europe: Prospects and Challenges. Routledge, New York, 8, 69–81.Google Scholar
Hill, M. 1997. Implementation theory: yesterday's issue? Policy & Politics, 25, 4, 375–85.Google Scholar
Ibsen, B. 1996. Changes in local voluntary associations in Denmark. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 7, 2, 160–76.Google Scholar
Ibsen, B. and Boje, T. 2006. Frivillighed og nonprofit i Danmark: omfang, organisation, økonomi og beskæftigelse [Volunteering and Non-profit in Denmark: Scope, Organization, Economy, and Employment]. Socialforskningsinstituttet, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Ishoej Municipality 2015. Municipal Policies. Available online at http://www.ishoj.dk/politikker [Accessed 1 October 2015].Google Scholar
Jessop, B. 1998. The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development. International Social Science Journal, 50, 155, 29–45.Google Scholar
Johnsen, Å. 2005. What does 25 years of experience tell us about the state of performance measurement in public policy and management? Public Money and Management, 25, 1, 9–17.Google Scholar
Kickert, W. J., Klijn, E. H. and Koppenjan, J. F. M. 1997. Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Klijn, E. H. and Koppenjan, J. 2015. Governance Networks in the Public Sector. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.Google Scholar
La Cour, A. 2012. The love affair between the policy and the voluntary organizations. In Åkerstrøm Andersen, N. and Sand, I. (eds), Hybrid Forms of Governance. Springer, New York, 46–63.Google Scholar
Lindsay, C., Osborne, S. P. and Bond, S. U. E. 2014. The ‘new public governance’ and employability services in an era of crisis: challenges for third sector organizations in Scotland. Public Administration, 92, 1, 192–207.Google Scholar
Lowndes, V. and Pratchett, L. 2012. Local governance under the coalition government: Austerity, localism and the ‘Big Society’. Local Government Studies, 38, 1, 21–40.Google Scholar
Osborne, S. P. and McLaughlin, K. 2004. The cross-cutting review of the voluntary sector: where next for local government–voluntary sector relationships? Regional Studies, 38, 5, 571–80.Google Scholar
Parrado, S., Van Ryzin, G. G. and Bovaird, T. 2013. Correlates of co-production: evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management Journal, 16, 1, 85–112.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. 2005. Qualitative Research. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Pestoff, V. 2009. Towards a paradigm of democratic participation: citizen participation and co-production of personal social services in Sweden. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80, 2, 197–224.Google Scholar
Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T. and Vershuere, B. (eds) 2013. New Public Governance, the Third Sector, and Co-production. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.Google Scholar
Rees, J., Mullins, D. and Bovaird, T. 2012. Third sector partnerships for public service delivery: an evidence review. Working Paper, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.Google Scholar
Sirven, N. and Debrand, T. 2008. Social participation and healthy ageing: an international comparison using SHARE data. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 12, 2017–26.Google Scholar
Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. 2005. Network governance and post-liberal democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27, 2, 197–237.Google Scholar
Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. 2012. Offentlig Ledelse af Frivilliges Samproduktion af Velfærdsservice. Væksthus for Ledelse, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Statistics Denmark 2016. Population and Elections. Available online at http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1920 [Accessed 28 December 2016].Google Scholar
Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. 2011. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–5.Google Scholar
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M. and Tummers, L. G. 2014. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17, 9, 1333–57.Google Scholar
Vordingborg Municipality 2015. Municipal Policies. Available online at https://vordingborg.dk/politik/vision-strategier-og-politikker/politikker/ [Accessed 1 December 2016].Google Scholar