Abstract
In this chapter, we investigate the changes in the relationship between the state and the voluntary sector and discuss the implications the increased role of the market sector within health and human services has for the relationship between sectors. First, we discuss the changes in voluntary sector policy in Norway over the last couple of decades, where the sector experienced increased expectations as to its society contribution. Thereafter, we try to understand these changes by going back in time and look at the ideological and institutional structure of the voluntary sector just before and during the heyday of the welfare state. An important distinction is drawn between voluntary work and activities going on mainly at the local level in traditional voluntary organizations (small scale) and the institutionalized voluntary-based service production in the health and welfare sectors (large scale). We find that market solutions have strengthened its position in fundamental ways on behalf of the voluntary sector when looking at large-scale institutional service delivery, while the small-scale voluntary sector is as vibrant and extensive as ever before. These changes imply deep-going changes in the Nordic welfare model and the relationship between sectors, where market solutions increasingly take over as service providers at the expense of the voluntary sector.
We thank Karl Henrik Sivesind for his comments.
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.
By “small scale,” we do not primarily mean the overall size of the organizations but where the activity is concentrated and the scope of that activity. Many of these types of organizations, primarily active at the local level, most often have a mother organization and/or umbrella organization at the national level, counting high-aggregate memberships, and may also have an important advocacy role to play (e.g. within sports, culture and leisure).
- 2.
This is primarily within social services in Norway and Denmark, and within health and schools in Sweden.
- 3.
There has also been significant newspaper coverage and a great deal of criticism regarding the potential for misuse of the system (negotiating agreements with players, associations founded purely to obtain the Grass Roots Shares, etc.), which has brought about a notice of altered regulations to prevent and counter system misuse (Ministry of Culture, 2012b).
- 4.
- 5.
The Contact Committee’s decisions were consensus-based and could not handle controversial issues, even though the committee was autonomous and not part of the Frisam secretary. The Frisam secretary lobbied the ministry and the Parliament, which of course in the long run was a no-survival model, since Frisam at the same time was part of the public administration.
- 6.
That general state support helps secure organizational autonomy may be difficult to understand for people coming from less state-friendly societies like the Anglo-Saxon countries (see Selle, 2008; Trägårdh, Selle, Henriksen, & Hallin, 2013) but is nevertheless a system characteristic of the Scandinavian type of welfare state (Selle, 1999).
- 7.
As late as in the fall of 2016, a new and important umbrella organization for the cultural field was formed (Kulturalliansen). See http://www.kulturalliansen.no/.
- 8.
Virke has an important position within the voluntary-based part of the health and social sectors, but some important voluntary service providers, as well as most of the commercial part, are in the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO).
- 9.
Needless to say, there has also been extensive cooperation within the field of leisure and culture since the expansion of a leisure society in the 1960s (Selle, 2013).
- 10.
In a defined-benefit pension scheme, the employer has a responsibility to safeguard for the employee a set pension over and above National Insurance, where the premium each year is fixed according to what is necessary to safeguard this pension. A defined-contribution pension, on the other hand, means that the employer has the responsibility for an annual premium payment as a set percentage of the salary, thus providing greater predictability for the employer (Heitmann, 2013).
- 11.
An agreement on a kind of hybrid pension system for the older voluntary-based institutions is in process. If agreed upon and implemented, it may imply real improvement of these institutions’ competitive position.
- 12.
There seems to be increased support in parts of the political landscape for the state to pay some of the sector’s “extra” pension costs and for voluntary-based institutions to have a higher growth rate than the market-based solutions. For more limited contracts, one no longer has to compete with the market sector, making it somewhat easier for certain types of NGOs to win contracts (https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2016-06-17-73). However, we do not know how deep and long lasting such a change in orientation will be or the institutional consequences thereof.
- 13.
The for-profit, full-time employment in public contracts increased by more than 50% from 2007 to 2015, while the non-profit and public sectors were stable (Statistics Norway, 2016a). One reason for this may be that some regions have changed from the traditional framework agreements to competitive tenders, which is a process where the for-profits tend to have an advantage.
- 14.
In some of the bigger cities, where the Labour Party made coalitions with other parties after the last local election, it was decided to limit commercial actors.
- 15.
In spring 2016, the media reported that international businesses (especially Norlandia Care Group AS) and other market-based institutions are getting rich on Norwegian kindergartens and are increasingly buying up such institutions (see, e.g. Øverbø, 2016). The civil society response has been marginal. Also in 2017, there were several of these cases in media, emphasizing the enormous amount of profit taken out of some of these global and also more local companies.
- 16.
For-profit has increased their part of the employment within the welfare field and within social services, especially within daycare centres, child welfare and addiction treatment. For an analysis of changes in employment figures within the different sectors (public, market and voluntary), see Sivesind (2017).
- 17.
Some will understand this as coming out of a new strength since something institutionally is happening. We see it mainly as yet another version of the “come and help us” state (a response out of weakness), in which the strong integrative role of the state in defining this service field and its space is rather obvious.
- 18.
Of course, many of these organizational types historically have had an important political role without being large-scale service providers, but already at this stage, much of the energy had left the traditional social movements (Selle & Øymyr, 1995).
- 19.
- 20.
The relationship between paid and unpaid voluntary works within the voluntary sector makes the Norwegian situation special. When we look at only unpaid voluntary work, Norway scores among the countries with the largest voluntary sector. When we include paid work, Norway is more “in the middle” of such a competition (see Sivesind & Selle, 2010, p. 112). These data concern the whole sector and not only the welfare field. Only looking at the health and welfare part, Norway is further down on the list (Sivesind & Selle, 2010; Sivesind, 2017).
- 21.
To become a separate sector in a country that in this period had so few inhabitants and scarce resources would not in any case have been easy (Selle & Berven, 2001). Size matters.
- 22.
That integration does not necessarily mean state dominance and that civil society autonomy is an important part of this structure can be difficult to grasp if working from a traditional Anglo-Saxon understanding of the state, i.e. the understanding of the state as a distant “enemy” (Selle, 2013; Trägårdh, 2007).
- 23.
For a somewhat similar approach to the German civil society, see Strachwitz and Zimmer (2010).
- 24.
For instance, in Norway in contrast to Sweden, within private elementary schools, you are not allowed to pay dividends to the owners.
- 25.
- 26.
These days, commercial service providers have gone to court to stop the municipality of Oslo trying to build such a marked for non-profits only. It will not be surprising if we will see more of this.
- 27.
Because of the disadvantages of short-term contracts, this debate has been raised, and we may see some change here as a consequence of the compact agreement and the possible implementation of the new law that to some extent may allow for noncompetitive contracts with the public sector (https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2016 - 06-17-73). Some new long-term contracts with the voluntary-based institutions have also appeared but are far from influencing the more general picture.
- 28.
References
Alapuro, R. (2010). Introdution: Comparative approaches to Associations and Civil Society in Nordic Countries. In R. Alapuro & H. Stenius (Eds.), Nordic Associations in a European perspective (pp. 11–28). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Arnesen, D., Sivesind, K. H., & Gulbrandsen, T. (2016). Fra medlemsbaserte organisasjoner til koordinert frivillighet? Det norske organisasjonssamfunnet fra 1980 til 2013. Report 2016:5. Bergen/Oslo, Norway: Centre for Research on Civil Society and Voluntary Sector.
Berven, N., & Selle, P. (Eds.). (2001). Svekket kvinnemakt. De frivillige organisasjonene og velferdsstaten. Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Carlén, I., & Bruer, E. S. (2010). Sårbar frivillighet – en rapport om endringer i rammevilkår for barne- og ungdomsorganisasjonene og konsekvensene for lokale lag. Report. Oslo, Norway: Landsrådet for Norges barne- og ungdomsorganisasjoner.
Centre for Research on Civil Society and Voluntary Sector. (07.07.2008). Nytt forskningsprogram om frivillig sektor. Retrieved from http://www.sivilsamfunn.no/Info/Aktuelt/Nytt-forskningsprogram-om-frivillig-sektor
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.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2008). The Challenges of Coordination in Central Government Organizations: The Norwegian Case. Public Organization Review, 8, 97–116.
Clemet, K. (2013). Ideologiska perspektiv på det civila samhället. In L. Trägårdh, P. Selle, L. Skov Henriksen, & H. Hallin (Eds.), Civilsamhället klämt mellan stat och kapital: Velferd, mångfald, framtid (pp. 237–243). Stockholm, Sweden: SNS-förlag.
Eikås, M., & Selle, P. (2002). A Contract Culture even in Scandinavia? In U. Ascoli & C. Ranci (Eds.), Dilemmas of the Welfare Mix. The New Structure of Welfare in an Era of Privatization (pp. 47–75). New York, NY: Springer.
Eimhjellen, I., & Mjåland, K. (2012). Frå Frisam, Frivillighetens Samarbeidsorgan, til Frivillighet Norge. In P. Selle & K. Strømsnes (Eds.), Organisasjonene og det offentlige. Har vi fått en ny frivillighetspolitikk? (pp. 111–119.) Report 2012: 6. Bergen/Oslo, Norway: Centre for Research on Civil Society and Voluntary Sector.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Evers, A. (2005). Mixed Welfare Systems and Hybrid Organizations: Changes in Governance and Provision of Social Services. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9–10), 737–748.
Folkestad, B., Christensen, D. A., Strømsnes, K., & Selle, P. (2015). Frivillig innsats i Noreg 1998–2014. Kva kjenneteikner dei frivillige og kva har endra seg?. Report 2015: 4. Bergen/Oslo, Norway: Centre for Research on Civil Society and Voluntary Sector.
Fossum, J. E., & Trenz, H.-J. (2006). The EU’s Fledgling Society: From deafening silence to critical voice in European constitution-making. Journal of Civil Society, 2(1), 57–77.
Frifond. (18.08.2016). Hvem kan få støtte fra Frifond?. Retrieved from http://www.frifond.no/hjelp/hvem-stottes
Grønlie, T. (1991). Velferdskommunen. In A. H. Nagel (Ed.), Velferdskommunen. Bergen, Norway: Alma Mater.
Gulbrandsen, T., & Ødegård, G. (2011). Frivillige organisasjoner i en ny tid. Utfordringer og endringsprosesser. Report 2011: 1. Oslo/Bergen, Norway: Centre for Research on Civil Society and Voluntary Sector.
Heitmann, J. H. (2013). Som en blixt från klar himmel. In L. Trägårdh, P. Selle, L. S. Henriksen, & H. Hallin (Eds.), Civilsamhället klämt mellan stat och kapital: Velferd, mångfald, framtid (pp. 102–117). Stockholm, Sweden: SNS-förlag.
Henriksen, L. S. (2013). Det avgränsade civilsamhället. In L. Trägårdh, P. Selle, L. S. Henriksen, & H. Hallin (Eds.), Civilsamhället klämt mellan stat och kapital: Velferd, mångfald, framtid (pp. 64–74). Stockholm, Sweden: SNS-förlag.
Henriksen, L. S., Zimmer, A., & Smith, S. R. (2012). On the Eve of Convergence? The transformation of Social Service Provision in Denmark, Germany and the US. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(2), 458–501.
Innst. 358 L. (2015–2016). Innstilling fra næringskomiteen om Lov om offentlige anskaffelser (anskaffelsesloven). Stortinget.
Johansson, H., Kassman, A., & Scaramuzzino, R. (2011). Staten och det civila samhällets organisationer i ett föränderligt välfärdssamhälle. Perspektiv på en överenskommelse. Report. Stockholm, Sweden: Överenskommelsen.
Kohler-Koch, B., & Quittkat, C. (2013). De-Mystification of Participatory Democracy. EU Governance and Civil Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2015). Organizing for “wicked problems” – analyzing coordination arrangements in two policy areas. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(6), 475–493.
Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2016). Norway: managerialism, incrementalism and collaboration. In G. Hammerschmid, S. Van de Walle, R. Andrews, & P. Bezes (Eds.), Public administration reforms in Europe. The view from the top (pp. 151–161). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Lee, I. (03.11.2015). Lover kokebok om sosialt entreprenørskap. Retrieved from http://sosentkonferansen.no/lover-kokebok-om-sosialt-entreprenorskap/
Loga, J. (2010). Livskvalitet. Betydning av kultur og frivillighet for helse, trivsel og lykke. En kunnskapsoversikt. Report 2010: 1. Oslo/Bergen, Norway: Centre for Research on Civil Society and Voluntary Sector.
Loga, J., Eimhjellen, I., Eschweiler, J., Ingstad, E. L., Stokstad, S., & Winsvold, M. (2016). Sosiale entreprenører – partnerskap for nye løsninger. Report 2016: 1. Bergen, Norway: Uni Research Rokkansenteret.
Lorentzen, H. (1994). Frivillighetens integrasjon. Staten og de frivillige velferdsprodusentene. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
Lorentzen, H. (2004). Fellesskapets fundament. Sivilsamfunnet og individualismen. Oslo, Norway: Pax.
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.
Lundström, T., & Wijkström, F. (1997). The Nonprofit Sector in Sweden. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Melby, K., Pylkänen, A., Rosenbeck, B., & Wetterberg, C. C. (2006). Inte ett ord om kärlek. Ekteskap och politik i Norden ca 1850–1930. Göteborg, Sweden: Makadam Förlag.
Ministry of Culture. (2012a). Historikk. Retrieved 03.05.2012 from http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kud/dep/org/historikk-2.html?id=449414
Ministry of Culture. (2012b). Forskriftsendring for grasrotandelen på høring. Retrieved 03.10.2012 from http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kud/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2012/forskriftsendring-for-grasrotandelen-pa-.html?id=699137
Nagel, A.-H. (Ed.). (1991). Velferdskommunen. Kommunenes rolle i utviklingen av velferdsstaten. Bergen, Norway: Alma Mater.
Norsk Tipping. (2016). Grasrotandelen knuste alle rekorder. Retrieved 16.08.2016 from https://www.norsk-tipping.no/artikler/grasrotandelen-knuste-alle-rekorder
NOU. (2011:11). Innovasjon i omsorg. Ministry of Health and Care Services.
NOU. (2016:12). Ideell opprydding. Statlig dekning av ideelle organisasjoners historiske pensjonskostnader. Ministry of Culture.
Office of the Prime Minister. (2013). Political platform for a government formed by the Conservative Party and the Progress Party, Sundvolden, 07.10.13. Retrieved 16.08.2016 from https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/political-platform/id743014/
Øverbø, S. L. (2016). Fagforbundet: – Barnehagebaroner blir søkkrike på våre skattepenger. NRK 06.06.2016. Retrieved 12.09.2016 from https://www.nrk.no/telemark/fagforbundet-kritiserer-storebarnehagekjeder-for-oppkjop-1.12981580.
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.
Selle, P. (1999). Organisasjonssamfunnet – eit statsreiskap? In T. Grønlie & P. Selle (Eds.), Ein Stat? Fristillingas fire ansikt (pp. 141–178). Oslo, Norway: Samlaget.
Selle, P. (2008). Forståinga av sivilsamfunnet. Er det berre opp til augo som ser? Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 49(4), 613–624.
Selle, P. (2013). Reflektioner kring medlemsmodellens betydelse. In L. Trägårdh, P. Selle, L. S. Henriksen, & H. Hallin (Eds.), Civilsamhället klämt mellan stat och kapital: Velferd, mångfald, framtid (pp. 49–63). Stockholm, Sweden: SNS-förlag.
Selle, P. (2016). Frivillighetens marginalisering. Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning, 19(1), 76–89.
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., & Øymyr, B. (1995). Frivillig organisering og demokrati: Det frivillige organisasjonssamfunnet endrar seg 1940–1990. Oslo, Norway: Det Norske Samlaget.
Selle, P., & Wollebæk, D. (2010). Why social democracy is not a civil society regime in Norway. Journal of Political Ideologies, 15(3), 289–302.
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. (2008). Halvveis til Soria Moria. Ikke-kommersielle velferdstjenester, politikkens blinde flekk?. Report 2008:3. Oslo, Norway: Institute for Social Research.
Sivesind, K. H. (2013). Ideella välfärdstjänster: en lösning på den nordiska modellens framtida utmaningar? In L. Trägårdh, P. Selle, L. S. Henriksen, & H. Hallin (Eds.), Civilsamhället klämt mellan stat och kapital: Velferd, mångfald, framtid (pp. 75–88). Stockholm, Sweden: SNS-förlag.
Sivesind, K. H. (2014). Filantropi i Norge – oversikt og trender. Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Culture.
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., & Saglie, J. (Eds.). (2017). Promoting active citizenship. Markets and choice in Scandinavian welfare. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sivesind, K. H., Segaard, S. B., & Trætteberg, H. S. (2016). Mot en ny skandinavisk velferdsmodell?. Report 2016:1. Oslo, Norway: Institute for Social Research.
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.
Smith, S. R. (2016). Voluntary organizations and the welfare state: Is it time for a new paradigm?. Paper delivered at the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) conference, Prague, 8–11 September 2016.
Smith, S. R., & Phillips, S. D. (2017). Social services in an era of austerity and competition. Paper delivered at the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) conference, Oslo, 7–9 September 2017.
St.meld. no. 27. (1996–1997). Om statens forhold til frivillige organisasjoner. Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Culture.
St.meld. no. 39. (2006–2007). Frivillighet for alle. Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs.
St.meld. no. 44. (1997–1998). Tilleggsmelding om statens forhold til frivillige organisasjoner. Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Culture.
Statistics Norway. (2011). Satellite account for non-profit institutions, 2009. Retrieved 22.09.2016 from https://www.ssb.no/en/nasjonalregnskap-og-konjunkturer/statistikker/orgsat/aar/2011-12-19
Statistics Norway. (2016a). 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. (2016b). Table 07126: Children’s institutions. Contractual man-years adjusted for long-term leaves, by region, age of the personnel and ownership of the institution. www.ssb.no/statistikkbanken
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.
Stortinget. (2010). Representantforslag om innføring av samfunnskontrakt for å bedre samspillet mellom offentlig sektor og ideell sektor. Retrieved 22.09.2016 from https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Saker/Sak/?p=45802
Strachwitz, R., & Zimmer, A. (2010). The third sector and political ideologies: unpacking relations between organized civil society and the state. Journal of Political Ideologies, 15(3), 273–287.
Strømsnes, K. (2013). Norsk frivillighetspolitik: Ny och enhetlig? In L. Trägårdh, P. Selle, L. S. Henriksen, & H. Hallin (Eds.), Civilsamhället klämt mellan stat och kapital: Velferd, mångfald, framtid (pp. 89–101). Stockholm, Sweden: SNS-förlag.
The Association of NGOs in Norway. (2016). About the Association of NGOs in Norway. Retrieved 18.05.2016 from http://www.frivillighetnorge.no/no/english/
The Government. (2015). Vil ha mer samarbeid mellom kommunene og frivilligheten. Press release 10.09.2015. Retrieved 16.08.2016 from https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/vil-ha-mer-samarbeid-mellom-kommunene-og-frivilligheten/id2439234/
Trägård, L. (Ed.) (2007). State and Civil Society in Northern Europe. The Swedish Model Reconsidered. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Trägårdh, L., Selle, P., Henriksen, L. S., & Hallin, H. (Eds.). (2013). Civilsamhället klämt mellan stat och kapital: Välfärd, mångfald, framtid. Stockholm, Sweden: SNS-förlag.
Tranøy, B. S., & Østerud, Ø. (Eds.). (2001). Den fragmenterte staten. Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Tranvik, T., & Selle, P. (2005). State and citizen in Norway: Organizational Society and the state-municipal relations. West European Politics, 28(4), 852–871.
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.
Trygstad, S., Lorentzen, T., Løken, E., Moland, L., & Skalle, N. (2006). Den nye staten. Omfang og effekter av omstillingene i staten 1990–2004. Report 530. Oslo, Norway: Fafo.
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
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Selle, P., Strømsnes, K., Loga, J. (2018). State and Civil Society: A Regime Change?. 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_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77264-6_4
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)