The Worldview-Open Society, the Worldview-Controlling State and Non-Profit Welfare Actors: Norway as a Case

1 Introduction: A Worldview-Open Society and a Worldview-Controlling State

The article demonstrates how Norway enables important roles for non-profit actors with a Christian basis to carry out tasks for the common good, with public funding. The concept worldview-open society was introduced by a 2013 Green paper (hereafter: NOU; NOU 2013:1; see also Stålsett 2021).

The Public Procurement Regulation defines a non-profit actor as: “works exclusively for a social purpose for the good of the community and … reinvests any surplus into the organization’s purpose” (Government 2020: Section 30-2a(2), excerpts). The term “actor” is used as a common term for organizations, churches, institutions, associations and foundations.^[1]

Both statutes and practices are used to assess whether a given actor is non-profit, not under which law it is registered. A foundation can enrich its owners through ways of transferring money to entities controlled by these owners. A company limited by shares can specify in its statutes that any surplus must be reinvested for a social purpose.

In Norway, governments of various position along the political spectrum regularly affirm the importance of non-profit actors with a religious basis. The largest non-profit actors in Norway are diaconal, primarily by being owners of large hospitals. The common good objective of these and their practical and political efforts to promote justice for particularly marginalized groups of people coincides with Norwegian public policy strategies. Political parties across the political spectrum promote enhanced roles of diaconal actors (Government 2018a; Oslo City Parliament 2023, pp. 6–7; Oslo City Council 2022, p. 5; Rødt 2022).

By being locally embedded and engaging in social entrepreneurship, diaconal actors also contribute to community development (Stålsett 2021, pp. 111–114; see also Lutheran World Federation (LWF) 2009; and LWF and interdiac 2013). Diaconal actors represent the entire spectrum of theological positions; from expectations to "[p]articipate actively in … [Christian] meetings … " (Gospel Centre 2021) to the Church City Mission’s two decades’ involvement with Pride.

Norway is interesting for three reasons. Whereas the relations between public authorities and non-profit actors are characterized by tenders, management by objectives, and reporting (Trætteberg 2015), Norway has (i) a relatively strong and independent non-profit sector that can influence policy making (Håbrekke 2022 [former member of the Parliament’s (Stortinget) Family and Culture Committee]);^[2] (ii) diaconal actors constitute a relatively large share of the non-profit sector (see Table 1);^[3] and (iii) many policy decisions and a tender reservation provision, approved by the EFTA Court (2023, para 86); in a reserved tender process, Oslo District Court (2023) [appealed] found that one specific tender process did not comply with Norway’s EEA obligations.^[4]

Moreover, on collective action, Norway has witnessed relatively successful alliances for formulating policy demands, initiated by the trade union Fagforbundet, being the largest member of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and Virke, The Federation of Norwegian Enterprise, particulary the unit Virke ideell og frivillighet, as well as Ideelt Nettverk, resulting in time-bound targets set by the Parliament and Oslo City Parliament for share of services to be provided by non-profit actors, as will be seen. Additionally, Norway has seen successful politicization of the for-profit versus non-profit debate, involving also think tanks, with political salience reflected in the population’s reduced approval of price as the most decisive criterion in tender competitions (Bjøru et al. 2019, p. 131 and p. 124).

This article seeks to answer the following research question: Focusing on health and social welfare, how are non-profit actors recognized by Norwegian authorities, how are parliamentary decisions on increased shares of non-profit actors complied with, and do the authorities specify special expectations or requirements on the diaconal actors?

Part 2 clarifies the analytic design. Part 3 provides an overview of health, social and education services for four categories of actors. Part 4 analyzes four public policy sources on non-profit actors: government platforms; a law compensating pension expenses incurred under previous contracts; a provision to limit participation in tender processes to non-profit actors; and a changed practice regarding non-profit actors’ surplus. Part 5 reviews policy decisions – or premises for such decisions – affirming the roles of diaconal actors: legislative proposals and reports to the parliament; NOU reports; and municipal decisions regarding nursing homes. Part 6 provides a summing-up discussion.

2 Analytic Design: Context, Previous Research, Methods and Limitations

The article builds primarily on research on diaconal actors in Northern Europe and research on non-profit actors with relevance for advanced and secularised welfare states. In addition to path dependence, namely that institutional solutions are characterized by previously dominant mindsets, termed historical institutionalism (Sætre 2023, pp. 45–46) conscious political choices will shape societal developments (see Nicholls 2010 for a pro-justice approach; see Carrington et al. 2017 for a profit maximization approach).

While acknowledging the scholarly literature on hybridity (Billis (ed.) 2010; Sætre 2023; Trætteberg 2015), this article takes as its premise that non-profit actors – whose institutions might get 100 per cent public funding for their operating costs, and still not be prevented from criticizing public policies – are tools for fostering the common good and fulfillment of human rights. These actors will not only adhere to their own visions but also those visions promoted by the public institutions, resulting in isomorphism, a central term in neo-institutionalism (DiMaggio and Powell 1983); for a reminder of the importance of historical-contextual and relational perspectives when studying non-profit actors, see Kuhnle and Selle (1992). The maintenance of a diaconal profile for diaconal institutions depends on the leadership’s efforts (Hofmann and Leis-Peters 2021; see also Askeland et al. 2019; for categorisations of humanitarian actors’ embeddedness in religion, see Thaut 2009; Sider and Unruh 2004).

Whereas people with parents in diaconal nursing homes do not necessarily value distinctness, attitudes are significantly different among those with children in Christian schools:^[5] These are both more engaged and more concerned about distinctness (Sivesind and Saglie 2017; Trætteberg 2015; Virke 2021); Trætteberg (2015) observes limited adaption to market thinking in schools with “unit pricing”; for kinder gardens; see Trætteberg and Fladmoe (2020; for Nordic comparisons, see Trætteberg et al. 2023).

Services that do not differ from services provided by publicly owned institutions can be termed supplementary, whereas service provision with a distinct content can be termed complementary.

Structural challenges for diaconal actors are discussed by Angell (2012) and Haugen (2018); diaconal actors’ relationships to political authorities do not deviate from the Norwegian overall pattern of integrated dependence (Kuhnle and Selle 1992, p. 30). Even if Norway is a secularised society, 77 percent, including 70 percent who consider themselves non-religious, do recognize that religious organizations “play an important role in helping the poor and needy” (Pew Research Center 2018, p. 19; for a comparison with Sweden, see Angell 2014, p. 151).

Prospects for the nonprofit sector are analyzed in three contributions from Selle and colleagues (Selle, Strømsnes, and Kuhnle 2022; Selle and Strømsnes 2019; Selle 2016), discussing contract culture, together with weakened recognition and less opportunities for innovation as explanations for the weaker position of what they refer to as the “voluntary sector”. By building on Anheier’s four scenarios of what he refers to as “civil society” (Anheier 2019), namely economic actor, local community actor, political actor and entrepreneur, they highlight certain characteristics within each of the four: New Public Management, involvement, accountability and innovation (Selle, Strømsnes, and Kuhnle 2022). These are applied in the discussion.

Selle (2016, p. 87) finds that “the language of competition has taken over for the language of trust.” Moreover, voluntary work today “can take place in any organisational setting, be it voluntary, governmental or market-based” (Selle 2016, p. 87), acknowledging that civil society actors are based on a principle of universality and a common good thinking.

The article reviews political decisions and positions within health and social services, with some comparisons with educational services, and data limited to the years after 2005: Government platforms, legislative proposals, White papers, budget proposals, municipal decisions and NOUs, as well as provisions restricting calls for tenders to non-profit actors. NOUs are not political decisions, but their mandates are political decisions, and their recommendations might lead to new directions in public policies. If a majority government proposes new policies, laws or budgets, these will be adopted by the Parliament; such outcomes are not guaranteed if these proposals come from a minority government.

In line with the first and last parts of the research question, different search strategies are applied, as policies regarding diaconal actors is less frequently referred to in public documents as compared to policies regarding non-profit actors. All documents published after 2005 have been reviewed and those with most relevance for health care and social protection have been included. For NOUs, legislative proposals and White papers, the criterion is if – and if so, how – diaconal actors are referred to. For Government platforms, budget proposals and initial proposals on new regulation provisions, the criterion is if – and if so, how – non-profit actors are referred to.

The analysis of political decisions will not include educational services. However, to give a fuller picture of the activities of non-profit actors in service provision, figures for schools and kindergartens will be given in part 3, and one legal provision on education is included in part 6.

3 Share of the Welfare Services Provided by Diaconal/Non-Profit Worldview-Based Actors

Table 1 shows the proportion of services provided by four types of service providers: non-profit, non-faith; non-profit, faith-based; for-profit; and public. Stortinget asked:

the government to determine a target for the proportion of the overall health and care sector that must be organized and run by a non-profit actor, and in a suitable manner present to the Storting a plan with short-term and long-term measures to achieve this. (Government 2018b, p. 96 [original decision no. 126 (2016–2017), 9 December 2016])

The target was formulated as 10 per cent by 2025 in the state budget for 2020 (Government 2019a, p. 53); the plan came as a list of measures in the state budget for 2019 (Government 2018b, pp. 96–97).^[6]

For child welfare, the target figure is 40 per cent for non-profit actors’ share of institutional operations by 2025 (Stortinget 2018; for more decisions, see Haugen 2020, p. 29). New multiyear contracts entered into in 2022 implies that the 40 per cent target is not likely to be reached (Askim [Procurement Director in the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs; hereafter «Bufdir»] 2022; Røren et al. [quoting the Minister of Children and Families] 2022; NRK 2022; Herning and Amundsen 2022).

Note that the term «faith» includes secular worldviews.

Not listed in Table 1 are assistance for labour integration and reception centres for asylum seekers, with a limited share of non-profit actors (NOU 2020:13, p. 572 and p. 576); higher education institutions, experiencing growth (NOU 2024:1, p. 37–38); and family counselling, church-based offices having agreement with the Family Counselling Services (Bufetat) constituting about 40 per cent of services (NOU 2020:13, p. 550; 19 of the 42 family welfare offices are church-based). Diaconal actors provide the majority of services within addiction treatment.

We see that non-profit, faith-based account for between 2 and 5 per cent of the total services, with the lowest share for schools, but there has been a considerable growth in non-profit schools (NOU 2024:1, p. 37–38), as new Christian schools are established.

4 Acknowledging the Importance of Non-Profit Actors

The roles of non-profit actors are positively acknowledged in three types of documents: government platforms; the adoption of a law compensating pension expenses incurred under previous contracts with state agencies; and documents leading to a Public Procurement Regulation provision. Finally, there has been disagreements on what to do with a non-profit actor’s eventual surplus after fulfilling the contract with a public agency. Each of these will be analyzed.

5 Diaconal Actors – Recognition and Additional Requirements?

In addition to reviewing White papers or legislative proposals coming from the Goverment and NOU reports, recent municipal decisions regarding nursing homes are analyzed.

6 Concluding Discussion

Returning to the research question, Norwegian authorities do recognize – and seek to strengthen the role of – non-profit actors in the Norwegian welfare society, thereby also diaconal actors. The 10 per cent target of service delivery by non-profit actors on a national level by 2025 might be difficult to reach. More ambitious is the target of 40 per cent non-profit actors in child welfare services, where the relevant authorities have been slow in replacing for-profit actors with non-profit actors, which can be explained by the need for predictability and the for-profit actors’ ability to out-compete non-profit actors. As regards the Oslo municipality objective, of 25 per cent non-profit share in health and care services, this has been met – two years before 2025.

For the third part of the research question, on diaconal actors performing contract-based services, two main findings can be summarised. First, the service’ content is regulated in contracts and through dialogues. The overall responsibility for services by public authorites is specified in the respective legislations, whereas regulations specificy the Christian content of services, limited to institutions for elders (see part 5.4). This can be compared with educational services, balancing between maintaining distinctness and avoiding “non-deviant content”, as specified in Section 27 of the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act, specifying that teaching aids and teaching must comply with the Act’s purpose.^[11] This is the clearest example of Norway as a worldview-controlling state. Second, except for the term “diversity” (Government 2018c, p. 37; NOU 2020:13), the authorities do neither emphasize nor warn against the Christian basis of the diaconal actors, and the diaconal actors providing these services can be characterized by accommodative humanitarianism (Thaut 2009), being faith-affiliated (Sider and Unruh 2004). However, some diaconal actors might have a weaker recognition of Christianity in the overall management, as evident by the term “faith background” (Sider and Unruh 2004).

It is particularly interesting that the Solberg II Government – consisting of the three parties which voted against the Oslo City Parliament’s target of 25 per cent being provided by non-profit actors by 2025 – proposed the reservation provision (Section 30-2a) in the Public Procurement Regulation. This shows that a political party’s priorities cannot be inferred from one level of decision-making to another level of decision-making.

The four NOUs highlight either explicitly or implicitly the diaconia actors’ societal roles. A legal definition of non-profit actors (NOU 2024:1) will likely be included in a legislation on a registry of non-profit actors, but implementation of recommendations from the second report by the Decommercialisation Commisson cannot be predicted. However, the nine justifications for favouring no-profit actors (NOU 2020:13) are – with the exception of budgetary efficiency – not applied in calls for tender competitions.

The past roles of churches and diaconal actors are recognized (Govermment 2008; 2019c) and their current roles are also almost ignored (Government 2018e). As a result of the higher awareness of the roles of diaconal and church actors in meeting the needs of those living in poverty, it is less likely that a similar omission would have occurred today.

Selle and colleagues (2022) recognize the role that organizations within health and care services have for involvement in the local community; reflecting their important roles for community development (LWF 2009; LWF and interdiac 2013). They are less affirming as regards the other three – economic actor, political actor and entrepreneurial actor – limited autonomy is included among the explanations (Selle, Strømsnes, and Kuhnle 2022, pp. 409–410). As regards economic actor, Bufdir’s (2022) contract template clarify that surplus can be reinvested in order to promote the diaconal actor’s societal purpose. As regards political actor, coordinated lobby efforts have resulted in policy shifts, sometimes even by new legislation. The likelihood of being successful, however, will to a certain degree depend on the size of diaconal actors. Hospitals are not subject to tender competitions and cannot easily be replaced. Smaller actors are subject to tender-based competition or application-based grant schemes (Government 2022b, pp. 88–89 and p. 265), causing unpredictability. As regards entrepreneurial actor, some of the diaconal foundations can build new institutions in sectors where they formerly did not operate (Diakonhjemmet foundation 2022a, 2022b); an innovative role is widely recognized for the Church City Mission (Enjolras et al. 2021) and the Salvation Army has initiated projects that reach persons that are not easily reached by public service providers (Trætteberg and Sivesind 2015; see also Stjernø and Saltkjel 2008). Hence, Selle and colleagues’ (2022) allegations that limited autonomy characterizes the non-profit actors, including diaconal actors, can be challenged.

As these 2022 decisions concerned new schools, it is relevant that establishment of schools by Christian, often conservative, organisations can be characterized by complementarity, whereas establishment of schools by diaconal foundations can be characterized by supplementarity.^[12] Most Norwegian schools or kindergartens with religious owner(s) will only require loyalty to the foundational values of the owner(s) – a loyalty which cannot be absolute, in cases of mismanagement – not "faith uniformity", as seen in continental Europe.^[13]

Hence, the term supplementary service is an adequate description of health and care institutions, even if their owners will seek to emphasize how their institutions are unique.

While institutional diversity and the role of non-profit actors in promoting wider societal objectives is recognized (2018a; see also NOU 2020:13), such qualities seems to be ignored in the calls for tender competitions. The insight from this article could be brought further by identifying which qualities that are specified in calls for tender, and when assessing applications received.