About the workshop

The theme will be studied in the three fields (social services, culture and sports) with scholars from five European countries. The core group of the conference consists of academic scholars that have been invited by the organizers for a contribution. However  the meeting is basically open for academic colleagues interested in the topic. The conference will be hosted by the Justus Liebig University, organized and co- chaired by Professor Adalbert Evers (Giessen) and Professor Annette Zimmer (Wilhelms Universität Münster).

The Field and the Developments to be studied

Democratic theory, concepts of welfare and the third sector have traditionally conceptualized democratic welfare societies as kind of “three sector societies”. Private goods and services are brought about by markets, whereas others, that have additional qualities or effects for the public good, call for public policies and state institutions and/or for civil society organisations in a third sector to take a lead role in creating and maintaining them. There has been however in recent decades an increasing blurring of boundaries.

This process, its effects and the analytical and socio-political challenges linked with it, should be studied in the planned conference series. It will be done in three areas, where traditionally third sector organisations have a prominent role:

• social services,
• organisations in culture and
• in the field of sports.

Besides important differences - such as the special role of public financing and regulation in the social service realms in order to safeguard them as social rights – there are a lot of communalities, especially the long tradition of interconnections between the roles and functions of civil society based organisations on the one and state regulation and support on the other hand

One important communality, that will deserve special attention, is the increasing impact of commercialisation and marketising in all the three areas, such as: public purchase of private provision in social services; blurring boundaries between the professionalized and commercialized parts of sports and other parts where it functions as a widely association-based popular leisure activity; search of museums and theatres for sponsors from the business sector and a more business-like management and marketing. In the third sector, these processes show up on the level of single organisations but as well on the level of clusters and networks that operate in the field, with tight interaction of public authorities, third sector representatives and business interest.

 In the academic discussions these developments have echoed in older and more recent approaches signified by labels such as “mixed economy”, “professionalisation”, “public-private partnerships”, “hybridisation”, or “agencification”. For the debates of such developments there are three points of reference

• on the one hand they can by judged and analyzed with respect to questions of quality – to what degree can e.g. private investments better the possibilities of cultural institutions to pursue their locally defined public mission
• on the other hand, they can be judged and analysed with respect to questions of democratic legitimacy – what are e.g. the effects when services are contracted out to agencies, that are neither undergoing market rules like competition nor much public accountability?
• finally they can be judged and analysed with respect to questions of active citizenship within the organisations and their mix of different kind of participants- what are the effects when volunteers are no longer welcomed as active participants of a non-profit organisation and furthermore, what does it mean for an NPO, active in the field of social services, culture or sports, if board members that usually were members of the local community are replaced by professionals?

With a view to quality, an optimistic viewpoint would underline, that by such processes market based effectiveness, the socialising effects of civil society associations and accountability towards overarching state-guaranteed quality goals could merger; from a sceptical viewpoint it might be underlined, that the interference of state associational and commercial rationales and concepts of the profile and quality of offers creates tensions, that mostly can solved only by a creeping isomorphism towards the commercialisation of formerly public and civic areas of welfare

With a view to legitimacy and democracy, it could positively be argued, that the specific control mechanisms of democratic decision-making, civic self administration and choice could enrich the control potentials of people as citizens, consumers and active members; the negative viewpoint would underline, that by such processes of blurring neither voice nor choice are really strengthened and the impact of membership is likewise reduced.

With a view to active citizenship, the gains of professionalisation could be in helping the organisations to survive in an increasingly tough environment, with the professionals being likewise indebted to the special mission of their organisation, that makes it different from state-public and commercial ones; taking a sceptical viewpoint, one could argue, that by professionalizing staff and management, there is an increasing danger to weaken the ties to and commitment for stakeholders from the community.

Format, Proceedings and Guiding Questions

The conference workshop plans to tackle the issues just described in the aforementioned areas of social services, sports and cultural organisations with a view to five countries: a Nordic country – perhaps Norway; Germany; an East European country; UK; Italy

Three researchers from each of these countries should for the respective three fields give a paper that deals with the following questions:

• What are the main hallmarks of the tradition in the country and the developments so far
• Which forms has – especially the increasing commercial impact – taken in areas of civil society based social service provision, sports and culture that are formally mostly still belonging to the non-governmental and not-for profit realm?
• What are the academic and public debates accompanying the blurring of boundaries, the changing impact of public authorities and interventions on the one and of commercial and market influences on the other hand?
• What are main results already visible and what do they mean from the two central perspectives suggested: the quality profile of the services and organisations, the democratic legitimacy of their governance and the degree they are community based, supporting volunteering and integration?