Abstract
Shared, experience-driven and value-based perspectives in an ongoing interaction of agents constitute the basis of the coevolutionary dynamics of a complex system. The interpretation of good governance comprehends participation as increasingly fundamental in approaching policies in complex systems. This chapter presents a Delphi study of the possibilities and obstacles of participative policymaking (PPM) in municipal welfare services viewed by an expert panel consisting of 37 participants representing the executive managers of third-sector organizations, the chairmen of the municipal councils or welfare service boards and the leading officeholders of municipal welfare offices in Finland. The panel estimated and discussed the projections of participatory welfare policymaking in 2030. The outcomes of the study indicate that regardless of technological preparedness and the structural opportunities offered by a reform, cultural inertia and unawareness generate attitudes inhibitory on PPM practices. Albeit participative practices were considered influential to policymaking legitimacy as well as central to the nature of equal and flexible resource distribution, there were reservations about the inclusion of the participation. There were concerns over the validity and the liability of the decisions reached by participative means. Several undercurrents affecting the development of PPM were discernible in the conversations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this study, “welfare” is understood in its widest sense, referring to the well-being of the citizens, and “welfare services” as a collective service provision to enhance it.
- 2.
The concept introduced by medical sociologist Aaron Antonovsky portrays the human abilities and resources to develop positively, underlining the societal arrangements to utilize those capabilities (Eriksson and Lindström 2014).
- 3.
In this study, the concept of participation implies the desire to influence in welfare policies by a variety of participative practices.
- 4.
The municipal policymaking in Finland is presently built on the so-called dual model, local councilors making decisions based on proposals and details prepared by the office bearers.
- 5.
Due to the resignation of the government at the time, the preparations for the implementation of the reform were discontinued in March 2019.
- 6.
At the time of the study, Finland consisted of 317 municipalities.
- 7.
At the time of the study, a total of 200 NGOs was listed under the parent organization SOSTE.
- 8.
For a description of the Delphi method stages of development, see Rieger (1986).
- 9.
Current version: eDelphi is a third version of a web-based software, introduced in the late 1990s by a corporation of Finnish futures scientists Linturi, Kuusi and Kaivo-oja. “eDelphi has been developed during 20 years together with Finnish future research institutions including University of Turku Futures Research Centre and Society for Futures Research” (http://www.edelphi.org).
- 10.
Expression used and discussed by panelists in R1.
- 11.
Comments referring to personal healthcare service decisions (e.g. decisions of medical treatments by the healthcare professionals) were excluded from the analysis.
- 12.
The numbering of the statements (claim N/statement N) enabled the verification of the statement interpretation during the confirmatory assessment.
- 13.
74 clustered statements of the claims 7, 9 and 10 (service outcomes).
- 14.
60 clustered statements of the claims 11, 13 and 14 (the structures of involvement).
- 15.
85 clustered statements of the claims 8, 12, 15 and 16 (administrative configuration).
References
Acik-Toprak, N. (2009). Civic engagement in Europe: A multilevel study of the effect of individual and national determinants on political participation. Political Consumerism and Associational Involvement. University of Manchester, Faculty of Humanities. Doctoral thesis. Retrieved from https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:94093&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF.
Adams, D., & Wiseman, J. (2003). Navigating the future: A case study of growing Victoria together. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(2), 11–23.
Allen, P. (2018). Complex evolving social systems: Unending, imperfect learning. In E. Mitleton-Kelly, A. Paraskevas, & C. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in complexity science: Theory and applications (pp. 18–44). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Appadurai, A. (2013). The future as cultural fact: Essays on the global condition. London: Verso.
Atkinson, R. (2002). The white paper on European governance: Implications for urban policy. European Planning Studies, 10(6), 781–792.
Blue, G. (2018). Scientism: A problem at the heart of formal public engagement with climate change. ACME, 17(2), 544–560.
Boulton, J. G., Allen, P. M., & Bowman, C. (2015). Embracing complexity: Strategic perspectives for an age of turbulence (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byrne, D. (2001). Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Cairney, P. (2012). Complexity theory in political science and public policy. Political Studies Review, 10(3), 346–358.
Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clarke, M., & Stewart, J. (2000). Handling the wicked issues. In C. Davies, L. Finlay, & A. Bullman (Eds.), Changing practice in health and social care (pp. 377–386). London: Sage.
Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (2017). Public opinion: Democratic ideals, democratic practice. London: SAGE.
Collins, B. (2010). Energy, transport, environment and the policy challenge. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 12(2), 77–80.
Conklin, E. J. (2006). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467.
Dennard, L. F., Richardson, K. A., & Morçöl, G. (2008). Editorial. In L. F. Dennard, K. A. Richardson, & G. Morçöl (Eds.), Complexity and policy analysis: Tools and methods for designing robust policies in a complex world (pp. 1–22). Goodyear, AZ: ISCE.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit: Helsinki.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Eppel, E. (2012). What does it take to make surprises less surprising? The contribution of complexity theory to anticipation in public management. Public Management Review, 14(7), 881–902.
Eppel, E. (2017). Complexity thinking in public administration’s theories-in-use. Public Management Review, 19(6), 845–861.
Eriksson, M., & Lindström, B. (2014). The salutogenic framework for Well-being: Implications for public policy. In T. J. Hämäläinen & J. Michaelson (Eds.), Well-being and beyond: Broadening the public and policy discourse (pp. 68–97). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Esping-Andersen, G. (2005). Inequality of incomes and opportunities. In A. Giddens & P. Diamond (Eds.), The new egalitarianism (pp. 8–38). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Eurocientist. (2016). Bringing RRI forward. Retrieved from http://www.euroscientist.com/bringing-rri-forward/.
Goergen, M., Mallin, C., Mitleton-Kelly, E., Al-Hawamdeh, A., & Chiu, I. H.-Y. (2010). Corporate governance and complexity theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Haynes, P. (2015). Managing complexity in the public services (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Hemerijck, A. (2002). The self-transformation of the European social model(s). In G. Esping-Andersen, D. Gallie, A. Hemerjick, & J. Myles (Eds.), Why we need a new welfare state (pp. 173–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hiltunen, E. (2011). Crowdsourcing the future: The foresight process at Finpro. Journal of Futures Studies, 16(1), 189–196.
Inglehart, R. (1999). Postmodernization erodes respect for authority but increases support for democracy. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government (pp. 236–256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79.
Kernick, D. P. (2008). Facilitating resource decision making in public organizations drawing upon insights from complexity theory. In L. F. Dennard, K. A. Richardson, & G. Morçöl (Eds.), Complexity and policy analysis: Tools and methods for designing robust policies in a complex world (pp. 105–115). Goodyear, AZ: ISCE.
Köhler, J., Wendling, C., Addarii, F., Grandjean, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2015). Concurrent design foresight. In Report to the European Commission of the Expert Group on Foresight Modelling. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Kuntaliitto. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.kuntaliitto.fi/tilastot-ja-julkaisut/kaupunkien-ja-kuntien-lukumaarat.
Kuusi, O. (2002). Delfoi –menetelmä. [The Delfoi-method.]. In M. Kamppinen, O. Kuusi, & S. Söderlund (Eds.), Tulevaisuudentutkimus: Perusteet ja sovellukset [Futures research: Foundations and directions] (pp. 204–225). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The delphi method (pp. 3–12). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Linturi, H. (2007). Delfoin metamorfooseja. [The metamorphoses of Delfoi.] Futura 26(1).
Linturi, H., & Rubin, A. (2014). Metodi, metafora ja tulevaisuuskartta. [The method, metaphor and the future map]. Futura 33(3).
Macpherson, C. B. (1977). The life and times of liberal democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mannermaa, M. (1988). Complexity and systems thinking in futures research: From “neutral” scenarios to value considerations. Systems Practice, 1(3), 279–205.
McGlade, J., & Garnsey, E. (2006). The nature of complexity. In E. Garnsey & J. McGlade (Eds.), Complexity and co-evolution: Continuity and change in socio-economic systems (pp. 1–21). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Ministry of Finance. (2017). Open Government III Action Plan 2017–2019 Finland. Retrieved from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Finland_NAP_2017-2019_EN.pdf.
Ministry of Finance. (2018). Open government partnership. National Action Plan—Finland 2017–2019: Mid-term interim evaluation. Retrieved from https://avoinhallinto.fi/assets/files/2018/09/In-English_OGP_Self-assessment_Finland_Midterm2017_2019-FINAL.pdf.
Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Ten principles of complexity and enabling infrastructures. In E. Mitleton-Kelly (Ed.), Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: The application of complexity theory to organisations (Vol. 1, pp. 23–50).
Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2011a). Identifying the multi-dimensional problem-space and co-creating an enabling environment. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 13(1/2), 1–25.
Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2011b). A complexity theory approach to sustainability: A longitudinal study in two London NHS hospitals. The Learning Organization, 18(1), 45–53.
Monno, V., & Khakee, A. (2012). Tokenism or political activism? Some reflections on participatory planning. International Planning Studies, 17(1), 85–101.
Möttönen, S. (2012). Kunnan poliittisen johtamisen uudistaminen—kokemuksia, näkemyksiä ja ehdotuksia. [Reshaping the political leadership in municipalities—experiences, perceptions and proposals.] Helsinki: Suomen Kuntaliitto.
Möttönen, S., & Kettunen, P. (2011). Yksilöosallistuminen ja yhteisöosallistuminen kuntien hyvinvointipalveluissa: Pohdintaa taustoista, periaatteista, vahvuuksista ja heikkouksista. [Individual participation and community participation in municipal welfare services: Reflection on backgrounds, principles, strengths and weaknesses.]. Kunnallistieteellinen aikakauskirja, 39(3), 281–293.
Nabatchi, T. (2012). Putting the “public” back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 699–708.
Nurmi, H., Syväjärvi, A., & Leinonen, J. (2018). Osallistava toimintaote hyvinvoinnin edistämistyössä. [Participatory manners in the advancement of well-being.]. In J. Lammintakanen & S. Laulainen (Eds.), Towards sustainable decision-making and management in welfare services (pp. 113–126). Kuopio: University of Eastern Finland.
Parsons, W. (2004). Not just steering but weaving: Relevant knowledge and the craft of building policy capacity and coherence. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 43–57.
Pernaa, H.-K. (2017). Deliberative future visioning: Utilizing the deliberative democracy theory and practice in futures research. European Journal of Futures Research, 5(1), 1–10.
Perttola, L., & Pernaa, H.-K. (2016). The absent minority in welfare planning: Entitling or overburdening citizens with responsibility? Social Research, 39(2), 48–61.
Pierson, P. (2000). Three worlds of welfare state research. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6/7), 791–821.
Pyun, H. O., & Gamassou, C. E. (2018). Looking for public administration theories? Public Organization Review, 18(2), 245–261.
Raisio, H. (2009). Health care reform planners and wicked problems: Is the wickedness of the problems taken seriously or is it even noticed at all? Journal of Health Organization and Management, 23(5), 477–493.
Raisio, H. (2010). The public as policy expert: Deliberative democracy in the context of Finnish health care reforms and policies. Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(2), article 6.
Raisio, H., Valkama, K., & Peltola, E. (2014). Disability and deliberative democracy: Towards involving the whole human spectrum in public deliberation. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 16(1), 77–97.
Rask, M. T., Mačiukaitė-Žvinienė, S., Tauginienė, L., Dikčius, V., Matschoss, K. Aarrevaara, T., & D’Andrea, L. (2016). Innovative public engagement: A conceptual model of public engagement in dynamic and responsible governance of research and innovation. Retrieved from https://pe2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Innovative-Public-Engagement-FINAL.pdf.
Rask, M., Puustinen, A., & Raisio H. (2018). Toward a theory of fourth sector involvement. Paper presented in ECPR conference, Hamburg 22–25 August. Retrieved from https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/5dc86a23-35c9-4cee-8090-5a3c84c9b8a6.pdf.
Rieger, W. G. (1986). Directions in Delphi developments: Dissertations and their quality. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 29(2), 195–204.
Riikonen, E., Makkonen, M., & Smith, G. (2004). Good marginality? In V. Puuronen, A. Häkkinen, A. Pylkkänen, T. Sandlund, & R. Toivanen (Eds.), New challenges for the welfare society (pp. 311–325). Joensuu: Publications of Karelia Institute, University of Joensuu.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1974). Wicked problems. Man-made Futures, 26(1), 272–280.
RRI. (2014). Rome declaration on responsible research and innovation in Europe. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/rome_declaration_RRI_final_21_November.pdf
Seaford, C. (2014). What implications does well-being science have for economic policy? In T. J. Hämäläinen & J. Michaelson (Eds.), Well-being and beyond: Broadening the public and policy discourse (pp. 221–243). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sørensen, E. (1998). New forms of democratic empowerment: Introducing user influence in the primary school system in Denmark. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 101(2), 129–143.
Spicker, P. (2008). Social policy: Themes and approaches (2nd ed.). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Stoppelenburg, A., & Vermaak, H. (2009). Defixation as an intervention perspective: Understanding wicked problems at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(1), 40–54.
THL. (2019). National Institute of Health and Welfare. Retrieved from https://thl.fi/en/web/social-welfare-and-health-care-reform.
Vartiainen, P. (2005). Wicked health care issues: An analysis of Finnish and Swedish health care reforms. In G. T. Savage, J. A. Chilingerian, M. Powell, & Q. Xiao (Eds.), International health care management. Advances in health care management (pp. 159–182). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Vartiainen, P. (2010). Changes and challenges in Finnish health care management. Society and Economy, 32(1), 123–136.
Vartola, J. (2005). Näkökulmia byrokratiaan. [The perspectives of bureaucracy.] Tampere: University of Tampere.
Verba, S., Lehman Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. E. (2002). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics (4th ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Warren, M. E. (2009). Governance-driven democratization. Critical Policy Studies, 3(1), 3–13.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin Books.
Yankelovich, D. (2015). Wicked problems, workable solutions: Lessons from a public life. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Ziglio, E. (1996). The Delphi method and its contribution to decision-making. In M. Adler & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health (Vol. 5, pp. 3–33). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pernaa, HK. (2020). Participative Policymaking in Complex Welfare System: A Delphi Study. In: Lehtimäki, H., Uusikylä, P., Smedlund, A. (eds) Society as an Interaction Space. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 22. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0069-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0069-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-0068-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-0069-5
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)