Abstract
This chapter looks at changes in the population of associations, organization structures, and patterns of collaboration with other organizations, businesses, and the public sector, harnessing data from several censuses and surveys conducted among national and local voluntary organizations in Norway from 1980 to 2013. The purpose is to provide an empirical overview of changes in the voluntary sector since the 1980s and assess how the processes of individualization, immigration, digitalization, and development of New Public Management (NPM) have affected the structural features of the Norwegian voluntary sector and transformed the popular movement model that has been dominant in Norway since the 1840s. The organizational landscape at the local level has been transformed resulting from an increased local community orientation related to the decline of the popular movements. At the national level, there is a significant increase in public interest organizations and no decline in traditional organizations. The findings support the thesis of a weakening of the hierarchical organizational model, seen from both the local and national levels, resulting in a development toward a two-tiered organizational society. However, there is also an array of evidence pointing toward an increasing prevalence of network-based communication as an alternative to a hierarchical structure and as a means of linking members and decision-makers in national organizations as well as local organizations.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In 2016 Norwegian Crowns (NOK).
- 2.
Figures for wages, employment, and productivity, by industry, from Statistics Norway’s annual national accounts, show that, if we also add the voluntary sector, there was an increase of 23.7% in the number of full-time equivalent years that were performed in all industries in the Norwegian economy from 1998 to 2013.
- 3.
In Statistics Norway’s satellite accounts for nonprofit and voluntary organizations, paid employment in the Welfare field is estimated at 53,163 full-time equivalent years (see http://www.ssb.no/orgsat). Unlike our data, this estimate also includes nonprofit welfare providers.
- 4.
Some organizations were registered in the Brønnøysund Register even though in practice they were shut down, and these were taken out of the gross sample based on feedback from the contact persons. The same pertained to organizations that were not national, which in addition also were filtered out through a routing in the questionnaire.
- 5.
The municipalities of Lindås, Austrheim, Odda, Jondal, and Sveio elected to stay outside of the project in 1999.
- 6.
This mostly pertains to year of establishment and member numbers.
References
Berven, N. (2001). Sanitetsforeningen og Nasjonalforeningen – både gjenoppdaget og marginalisert. In N. Berven & P. Selle (Eds.), Svekket kvinnemakt. De frivillige organisasjonene og velferdsstaten (pp. 84–109). Gyldendal Akademisk: Oslo, Norway.
Binderkrantz, A. S., Fisker, H. M., & Pedersen, H. H. (2016). The rise of citizen groups? The mobilization and representation of Danish interest groups, 1975–2010. Scandinavian Political Studies, 39(4), 291–311.
Bjarnar, O. (2001). Sanitetskvinnene lot allting skje i stillhet – var det riktig? In N. Berven & P. Selle (Eds.), Svekket kvinnemakt? De frivillige organisasjonene og velferdsstaten. Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Bogen, H., & Grønningsæter, A. (2016). En ideell forskjell? Om ideelle aktører i spesialhelsetjenesten. Fafo-report (Vol. 30). Oslo, Norway: Fafo.
Boje, T. P. (2017). Civilsamfund, medborgerskab og deltakelse. Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Bortne, Ø., Grendstad, G., Selle, P., & Strømsnes, K. (2001). Norsk miljøvernorganisering mellom stat og lokalsamfunn. Oslo, Norway: Samlaget.
Botvar, P. K. (2010). Endringer i nordmenns religiøse liv. In P. K. Botvar & U. Schmidt (Eds.), Religion i dagens Norge. Mellom sekularisering og sakralisering (pp. 11–24). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
Brandal, N., Bratberg, Ø., & Thorsen, D. E. (2013). The Nordic model of social democracy. Basingstone, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Christensen, D. A., Strømsnes, K., & Wollebæk, D. (2011). Organisasjonene i Hordaland 1999–2009. Report 2011:3. Oslo/Bergen, Norway: Center for Research on Civil Society & Voluntary Sector.
Egeberg, M., Olsen, J. P., & Sætren, H. (1978). Organisasjonssamfunnet og den segmenterte stat. In J. P. Olsen (Ed.), Politisk organisering: organisasjonsteoretiske synspunkt på folkestyre og politisk ulikhet. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
Enjolras, B., Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., & Wollebæk, D. (2013). Liker-Liker ikke: Samfunnsengasjement i en Facebook-tid. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm.
Erlandsson, S., Storm, P., Strantz, A., Szebehely, M., & Trydegård, G.-B. (2013). Marketising trends in Swedish eldercare: competition, choice and calls for stricter regulation. In G. Meagher & M. Szebehely (Eds.), Marketisation in Nordic eldercare: a research report on legislation, oversight, extent and consequences. Report 30 (pp. 23–84). Stockholm, Sweden: Department of Social Work, Stockholm University.
Espeli, H. (1999). Lobbyvirksomhet på Stortinget: lange linjer og aktuelle perspektiver med hovedvekt på næringsinteresser og næringspolitikk. Oslo, Norway: Tano Aschehoug.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Esping-Andersen, G., & Korpi, W. (1986). From poor relief to institutional welfare states: the development of Scandinavian social policy. International Journal of Sociology, 16, 3–4.
Hatlebakk, I. M. (2014). Rusbehandling – mye i privat regi. Samfunnsspeilet (2/2014). Oslo, Norway: Statistics Norway.
Helander, V., & Sivesind, K. H. (2001). Frivilligsektorns betydelse i Norden. In L. Skov Henriksen & B. Ibsen (Eds.), Frivillighedens udfordringer (pp. 49–66). Odense, Denmark: Odense Universitetsforlag.
Hestetun, P. A., & Onarheim, G. (1990a). Velferdsekspansjon og organisasjonsendring. In K. Høgsbro (Ed.), Sosiale problemer og selvorganiseret selvhjælp. Copenhagen, Denmark: Samfundslitteratur.
Hestetun, P. A., & Onarheim, G. (1990b). Velferdsekspansjon og organisasjonsendring. Organisasjoner og staten i kamp mot tuberkulosen. In S. Kuhnle & P. og Selle (Eds.), Frivillig organisert velferd – alternativ til offentlig? Bergen, Norway: Alma Mater.
Hirschmann, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Janoski, T. (1998). Citizenship and civil society. A framework of rights and obligations in liberal, traditional, and social democratic regimes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Janoski, T., & Wilson, J. (1995). Pathways to voluntarism: Family socialization and status transmission models. Social Forces, 74(1), 271–292.
Jepperson, R. L. (2002). Political modernities: Disentangling two underlying dimensions of institutional differentiation. Sociological Theory, 20(1), 61–85.
Kalnes, Ø. (1994). Norway: Between corporatism and pluralism. In B. Bucar & S. Kuhnle (Eds.), Small States Compared: Politics of Norway and Slovenia. Bergen, Norway: Alma Mater.
Kildal, N., & Kuhnle, S. (2014). The principle of universalism challenged: Towards an ideational shift in the Norwegian welfare state? In P. Kettunen, S. Kuhnle, & Y. Ren (Eds.), Reshaping welfare institutions in China and the Nordic countries. Helsinki, Finland: Nordic Centre of Excellence NordWel.
Korpi, W. (1983). The democratic class struggle. London, UK: Routledge.
Kuhnle, S., & Selle, P. (1990). Meeting needs in a welfare state: Relations between government and voluntary organizations in Norway. In A. Ware & R. E. Gooding (Eds.), Needs and welfare (pp. 165–184). London, UK: Sage.
Kuhnle, S., & Selle, P. (1992). Government and voluntary organizations: A relational perspective. In S. Kuhnle & P. Selle (Eds.), Government and voluntary organizations. A relational perspective (pp. 1–33). Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
Lorentzen, H. (2010). Statlige tilskudd til frivillige organisasjoner. En empirisk kartlegging. Report 2010: 4. Oslo/Bergen, Norway: Centre for Research on Civil Society and Voluntary Sector.
Nordby, T. (2004). Patterns of corporatist intermediation. In K. Heidar (Ed.), Nordic politics – comparative perspectives (pp. 98–107). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2015). Skolefakta - Elevar, lærarar, skolar. Retrieved from: http://skoleporten.udir.no/
NSD (2005). Archive of Non-Profit Organisations - Former. Norwegian Center for Research Data. URL: http://www.nsd.uib.no/polsys/index.cfm?urlname=otherarchives&lan=eng&institusjonsnr=6&arkivnr=10&MenuItem=N1_6&ChildItem=&State=collapse
Nyseth, T., Ringholm, T., Aarsæther, N., & Røiseland, A. (2000). Dugnad og demokrati. Bydelsutval, bygdelag og velforeiningar som politiske institusjonar. Oslo, Norway: Kommuneforlaget.
Østerud, Ø., Engelstad, F., & Selle, P. (2003). Makten og demokratiet: en sluttbok fra Makt- og demokratiutredningen (1998–2003). Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal.
Raaum, J. (1988). Vedlegg i: De frivillige organisasjonenes framvekst og utvikling i Norge. In NOU 1988:17. Frivillige organisasjoner. Oslo, Norway: Finans- og tollldepartementet.
Rokkan, S. (1966). Norway: Numerical democracy and corporate pluralism. In R. A. Dahl (Ed.), Political opposition in western democracies (pp. 70–115). New Heaven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rokkan, S. (1987). Stat, nasjon, klasse. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
Rommetvedt, H. (2002). Politikkens allmenngjøringen og den nypluralistiske parlamentarismen. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
Rothstein, B., & Trägårdh, L. (2007). The state and civil society in an historical perspective: The Swedish case. In L. Trägårdh (Ed.), State and civil society in Northern Europe. The Swedish model reconsidered (pp. 229–253). New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of Civil Society. Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213–248.
Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, W. (2001). Volunteering in cross-national perspective: Evidence from 24 countries. Working paper of The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project.
Salamon, M. L., & Sokolowski, W. (2016) The size and scope of the European third sector, TSI Working Paper No. 12, Seventh Framework Programme (grant agreement 613034), European Union. Brussels: Third Sector Impact. Retrieved from: http://thirdsectorimpact.eu/site/assets/uploads/documentations/tsi-working-paper-no-12-size-scope-third-sector-europe/TSI-Working-Paper-12_Size-and-Scope.pdf
Schofer, E., & Fourcade-Gourinchas, M. (2001). The structural contexts of civic engagement: Voluntary Association Membership in comparative perspective. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 806–828.
Selle, P., & Berven, N. (2001). Kvinner, organisering, makt. In N. Berven & P. Selle (Eds.), Svekket kvinnemakt. De frivillige organisasjonene og velferdsstaten (pp. 9–37). Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Selle, P. (1991). Organisasjonssamfunnet i ei brytningstid: utfordringar i 90-åra. Bergen, Norway: Alma Mater.
Selle, P., & Øymyr, B. (1995). Frivillig organisering og demokrati: Det frivillige organisasjonssamfunnet endrar seg 1940–1990. Oslo, Norway: Det Norske Samlaget.
Sivesind, K. H. (2007). Frivillig sektor i Norge 1997–2004. Frivillig arbeid, medlemskap, sysselsetting og økonomi. Report 2007:10. Oslo, Norway: Institute for Social Research.
Sivesind, K. H. (2008a). Halvveis til Soria Moria. Ikke-kommersielle velferdstjenester, politikkens blinde flekk?. Report 2008:3. Oslo, Norway: Institute for Social Research.
Sivesind, K. H. (2008b). Nonprofit organisasjoner på velferdsfeltet i Norden. In B. Ibsen, T. P. Boje, & T. Fridberg (Eds.), Det frivillige Danmark (pp. 161–178). Odense, Denmark: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Sivesind, K. H. (2015). Giving in Norway: An ambitious welfare state with a self-reliant nonprofit sector. In P. Wiepking & F. Handy (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of global philanthropy (pp. 230–248). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
Sivesind, K. H. (2017). The changing roles of for-profit and nonprofit welfare provision in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. In K. H. Sivesind & J. Saglie (Eds.), Promoting active citizenship? Markets and choice in Scandinavian welfare (pp. 33–74). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sivesind, K. H., Lorentzen, H., Selle, P., & Wollebæk, D. (2002). The voluntary sector in Norway – composition, changes, and causes. Report 2002:2. Oslo, Norway: Institute for Social Research.
Sivesind, K. H., Lorentzen, H., Selle, P., Wollebæk, D., Sokolowski, S. W., & Salamon, L. M. (2004). Norway. In L. M. Salamon, S. W. Sokolowski, et al. (Eds.), Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (Vol. II, pp. 261–275). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
Sivesind, K. H., & Selle, P. (2009). Does public spending “crowd out” nonprofit welfare? Comparative Social Research. A Research Annual, 26, 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0195-6310(2009)0000026009.
Sivesind, K. H., & Selle, P. (2010). Civil society in the Nordic countries: Between displacement and vitality. In R. Alapuro & H. Stenius (Eds.), Nordic Associations in a European perspective (pp. 89–120). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy. From membership to management in American Civic Life. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Statistics Norway (2014). Organisasjonsaktivitet, politisk deltakelse og sosialt nettverk, levekårsundersøkelsen. Retrieved from: https://www.ssb.no/en/kultur-og-fritid/statistikker/orgakt
Statistics Norway. (2015). Table 08520: Full-time equivalent persons, by activity (ICNPO). Satellite account for non-profit institutions, https://ssb.no/orgsat
Statistics Norway. (2016a). National economy. Table 09174, FTE employment in Education, Health and Social Work. www.ssb.no/pleie
Statistics Norway. (2016b). Satellite account for non-profit institutions, 2014. Retrieved 09.02.2017 from https://www.ssb.no/en/nasjonalregnskap-og-konjunkturer/statistikker/orgsat/aar/2016-10-20
Statistics Norway. (2016c). Table 09339: Man-years in kindergartens, by ownership and employment position. www.ssb.no/statistikkbanken.
Statistics Norway. (2016d). Table: 09929: Institutions for the aged and disabled, by ownership. www.ssb.no/pleie
Stenius, H. (2010). Nordic Associational life in a European and an inter-nordic perspective. In R. Alapuro & H. Stenius (Eds.), Nordic Associations in a European perspective (pp. 29–86). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Swedish Government Inquiries SOU, 2016:78. Ordning och reda i välfärden.
Trætteberg, H. S., & Sivesind, K. H. (2015). Ideelle organisasjoners særtrekk og merverdi på helse- og omsorgsfeltet. Report 2015-2. Oslo/Bergen, Norway: Centre for Research on Civil Society and Voluntary Sector.
Trägård, L. (2007). State and civil society in northern Europe. The Swedish model reconsidered. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Tranvik, T., & Selle, P. (2003). Farvel til folkestyret: nasjonalstaten og de nye nettverkene. Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Tranvik, T., & Selle, P. (2007). The rise and fall of popular mass movements: Organizational change and globalization – the Norwegian case. Acta Sociologica, 50(1), 57–70.
United Nations. (2003b). Handbook on non-profit institutions in the system of national accounts. New York, NY: United Nations.
Vabø, M., Christensen, K., Jacobsen, F. F., & Trætteberg, H. D. (2013). Marketisation in Norwegian eldercare: preconditions, trends and resistance. In G. Meagher & M. Szebehely (Eds.), Marketisation in Nordic eldercare: a research report on legislation, oversight, extent and consequences. Report 30 (pp. 163–202). Stockholm, Sweden: Department of Social Work, Stockholm University.
Wollebæk, D. (2001). Moderniseringen av organisasjonssamfunnet i et generasjonsperspektiv. Tidsskrift for ungdomsforskning, 1(1), 69–87.
Wollebæk, D. (2008). Change in local voluntary Associations. Ph.d-dissertation. Bergen: University of Bergen.
Wollebæk, D., & Selle, P. (2002). Det nye organisasjonssamfunnet. Demokrati i omforming. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
Wollebæk, D., & Sivesind, K. H. (2010). Fra folkebevegelse til filantropi? Frivillig innsats i Norge 1997–2009. Report 2010-3. Oslo/Bergen, Norway: Centre for Research on Civil Society and Voluntary Sector.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Data Sources Utilized in Chapter 3
Appendix: Data Sources Utilized in Chapter 3
Data on National Organizations
The most recent data on national organizations are from a study that was conducted by the Centre for Research on Civil Society and Voluntary Sector in 2013. The study was aimed at all types of nationwide associations, which included the organizations’ central divisions, stand-alone organizations, umbrella organizations , and Norwegian branches of international organizations. Nonprofit organizations that carry out welfare services were not included. After an adjustment of the gross sample and filtering of the submitted forms, it was determined that 933 organizations out of 3395 had responded.Footnote 4 This gave a final response rate of 27.5% for the study.
To examine changes on the national level, we have linked the more recent data to older data stemming from studies conducted in 1983 and 1992 as part of projects at the universities of Tromsø and Bergen. The studies are included in several Norwegian organization studies that have been conducted over several decades. The data are provided by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD 2005).
The gross sample consisted of a total of 1648 organizations in 1983, of which complete answers were given from 1127, which gives a response rate of 68.4%. In the subsequent study from 1992, the gross sample was expanded to a total of 2427 organizations, and responses were received from 1005, giving a response rate of 41.4%. Based on information from the more recent study, there is much to suggest that there existed several relevant organizations at both time periods that were not included but which we include in our analyses of the population level.
Weights have been developed to correct disparities in the samples based on organizational categories (and register data on the number of employees in 2013).
Data on Local Organizations and Associations
The first survey of local organizations in Hordaland was completed in 1980 as a collaborative project between the University of Bergen and the Culture Department of the county administration. Since then, surveys have been conducted as part of the Hopkins project in 1999 by the Norwegian Research Centre in Organisation and Management (LOS) and the Institute for Social Research (ISF) and in 2009 by the Centre for Research on Civil Society and Voluntary Sector.
As part of a census, information has been registered on organizations and associations in most municipalities in Hordaland County, including Bergen (with the exception of the first round).Footnote 5 The types of organizations that are excluded in all surveys are music schools, parent councils, parish magazine, parish councils, mountain boards, secondary school commencement boards, councils for the elderly, deer hunting grounds, and sports schools. In the most recent survey, it was also decided to remove housing cooperatives from the material because it proved difficult to get answers from them.
All registered groups and associations were sent a questionnaire in each round. To ensure comparability of data, a virtually identical questionnaire was used in all three studies. Any changes that were made had to do with the addition of new questions rather than changes to the existing formulation of questions.
For estimation purposes, we distinguish between the major city of Bergen and large, medium, and small rural districts based on the number of inhabitants. We have chosen to include only municipalities where adequate registration was done in all three rounds and where a relatively high response rate was achieved. Because there is data available only for the rural municipalities for all 3 years, the analyses will be based on this material, unless otherwise noted in the tables.
The Reliability and Applicability of the Data
Incorrect Sources and Missing Data
With respect to the older data about national organizations, we know that these have flaws that make it difficult to obtain full information about certain organizations. We therefore have inspected the data carefully to identify potential entry errors and obtained information from other available sources to fill in missing information, either from the organizations’ websites or from encyclopedia entries in cases where the organization has ceased to exist.Footnote 6 Despite these measures, there will still be organizations that we lack data on for one or more variables.
Such flaws may also be applicable to the newer organizational data, but we have far better knowledge of the collection process in this case. For example, there are some organizations that we lack complete information about because they eventually declined to answer the questionnaire. To the extent it is reasonable, we use the information that is available from the studies rather than removing the pertinent information from the data. Moreover, we cannot rule out errors in the registry data linked to the questionnaire data afterward, even though we have verified the information to the extent there was time and capacity to do so.
One strategy for rectifying the missing data when it more specifically pertains to figures for revenues and operating costs has been “multiple imputation” (Rubin 1987). This is a technique for analyzing missing data which produces more valid results than other traditional forms of imputation (such as, e.g., inserting mean values). The condition for being able to do such an analysis is that it is random whether the data is missing or not. We believe that this criterion in our case has been met. The main idea is that a series of imputed values are calculated which then are “pooled” together and form the basis for calculating the average of the relevant variables that have missing data.
Multiple imputations are used to calculate estimates of the operating costs of national organizations. We have based ourselves on type of organization (ICNPO) and number of employees, as well as operating costs (for the organizations that responded to this question) to calculate estimates for organizations with missing information.
Generalization of Data on Local Voluntary Organizations
When it comes to using the data on local organizations from Hordaland as a basis for describing the development of the organizational community more generally, this presupposes an assumption that Hordaland may be considered to be a Norway in miniature form. The population of the county is divided into smaller rural municipalities, towns, and a major city, which reflects the geography of the population for the country as a whole and provides a good basis for estimates. At the same time, the distinctive features of organizational life in Hordaland and Bergen must be taken into consideration, which means that we cannot be 100% certain that what we observe is true for the rest of Norway.
Religious and life-stance organizations are somewhat overrepresented, as they traditionally have been stronger in Hordaland than many other places in Norway due to the influence of the lay Christian movement. There are also many local organizations within choirs, singing and music, along with agriculture, wilderness, and fishing in the rural municipalities. Second, Bergen constitutes a greater share of the population in Hordaland than similar major cities do in the rest of the country, while a smaller proportion of the county’s population lives in large municipalities. These differences notwithstanding, the Hordaland surveys represent the most comprehensive existing source on Norwegian local voluntary organizations.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sivesind, K.H., Arnesen, D., Gulbrandsen, T., Nordø, Å.D., Enjolras, B. (2018). An Organizational Landscape in Transformation. In: Enjolras, B., Strømsnes, K. (eds) Scandinavian Civil Society and Social Transformations. Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77264-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77264-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77263-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77264-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)