Europeanization in Sweden

Opportunities and Challenges for Civil Society Organizations

Anna Meeuwisse, Roberto Scaramuzzino, Anna Meeuwisse, Roberto Scaramuzzino

• Publisher: Berghahn Books
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9781800737419
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781789200355
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Notwithstanding its many successes since 1945, the project of European integration currently faces major difficulties, from financial crises and mass immigration to the departure of the UK from the European Union. At the same time, these challenges have spurred civil society organizations within and across Europe, revealing a shared public sphere in which citizens can mobilize around refugee rights, opposition to austerity policies, and other issues. Europeanization in Sweden assembles new empirical research on how these processes have played out in one of the continent's wealthiest nations, providing insights into whether, and how, the "Swedish model" can guide European integration.

SECTION III

Chapter 6

EUROPEANIZATION THROUGH FUNDING

Matteo Di Placido and Roberto Scaramuzzino

This chapter deals with European Union (EU) funding of Swedish civil society organizations CSOs. It is a case study of five organizations that have been granted funding through the European Social Fund ESF, and it explores the conditions and consequences of such funding. The financial support from the ESF is an example of financial Europeanization (as described in chapter 1) targeting both local and national CSOs that are active in the social welfare area. The ESF can in fact be seen as part of a common European approach on social welfare issues related to the Lisbon/Europe Treaty of 2020 (hereafter Lisbon/Europe 2020). The common social welfare agenda aimed at modernizing the social model of EU-members states and combating social exclusion. “This strategy is based on policies of anti-discrimination and labour-market integration and targets a range of disadvantaged groups” (Scaramuzzino 2012, 103–4).

To better understand financial Europeanization and its consequences for Swedish CSOs we will draw on two influential theories of political opportunity structures and resource mobilization in social movement research. These theoretical perspectives have a complementary role in describing, understanding, and explaining the dynamic and complex interactions between social structures and collective actors (McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald 1996).

First, the political opportunity structure approach rests on the idea that collective actors are shaped by the set of political constraints and opportunities that are part of the context in which they are embedded (McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald 1996). Second, the resource mobilization approach focuses on mobilization processes and on the formal organizational manifestations of these processes through so-called social movement organizations (cf. McCarthy and Zald 1977). Both the political opportunity structure and the resource mobilization approaches highlight the importance of context for explaining the mobilization of different groups, although resource mobilization theory is more focused on the collective actors that interact with the structures. Our theoretical framework also aligns itself to the attempt to combine top-down and bottom-up approaches in the study of Europeanization processes (see chapter 1).

As previous research on EU funding of national CSOs has shown (e.g., Sánchez-Salgado 2014a, 2014b; Scaramuzzino et al. 2010; Scaramuzzino 2012), such funding can be interpreted as a fundamental European governance instrument as well as a source for resource mobilization for many CSOs. Such processes of governance offer the possibility of redefining democratic mechanisms not merely on a representational level but also on a participatory level. However, these processes of governance can also be interpreted as a locus of co-optation in the sense that they contribute to the regulation of the activities of CSOs. This co-optation is achieved through conditions aimed at regulating the access, participation, and impact of the organizations (Sánchez-Salgado 2007, 2013, 2014a, 2014b; Scaramuzzino et al. 2010; Scaramuzzino 2012; ). Furthermore, within these processes CSOs interact not only with public authorities, such as the state or the EU, but also with other CSOs. In such collaborations, organizations with fewer resources and that are less embedded in the institutional context are often relegated to subordinated positions and become dependent on the support of public authorities or larger and more professionalized CSOs (Scaramuzzino et al. 2010; Scaramuzzino 2012).

Here we investigate public funding by the EU both as a source of opportunity for resource mobilization as well as a source of regulation through dependency and steering by the public authority. This relates to what Jacobsson and Johansson call “embedded agency” in chapter 1 of this volume. In other words, the question is whether the complex dynamic interactions between CSOs and the EU, which are based on financial support, can be considered as fertile ground for democratization and as supporting the development and flourishing of democracy from below, or instead as an expression of institutionalized coercive governance processes through which CSOs lose their innovative and democratic character.

The study presents results of a case study of five organizations running projects funded by the ESF and is based on qualitative interviews and relevant documents, including official documents by the ESF and their national translation in programming documents (e.g., ESF 2007), reports, and other material such as flyers and webpages. Semistructured interviews were carried out in the fall of 2014 with two officials from the Swedish ESF council (at the regional and national levels) and with five representatives of Swedish CSOs that received funding from the ESF during the programming period 2007–13. The organizations were selected through a search engine for the programming period 2007–13 that is available on the Swedish ESF council website (ESF 2014a).

The results of the study are furthermore compared with previous research conducted on the importance of the EQUAL Community Initiative, also funded by the ESF between 2001 and 2007 for Swedish CSOs (Scaramuzzino et al. 2010) and for Italian and Swedish immigrant organizations (Scaramuzzino 2012). By this comparison we aim to explore potential changes in the political opportunity structure of the ESF and in the resource mobilization strategies of Swedish CSOs that are receiving the funding. We will also discuss the relevance of the national context for how financial Europeanization affects domestic civil society.

Public Funding of Swedish CSOs

The results presented in chapter 3 by Scaramuzzino and Wennerhag show that Swedish CSOs are mainly financed through membership fees and by funding from municipal authorities. These findings are consistent with cross-national comparisons of the sources of revenue for CSOs. Data published in 2004 show that Swedish organizations have the highest level of reliance on membership fees in Europe and among the lowest dependency on public funding (Salamon, Sokolowski and List 2004, 33). As we have seen in chapter 3, EU funding seems to play an even less prominent role. However, we know from previous studies that this source of funding can play an important and even essential role for some CSOs (Scaramuzzino et al. 2010; Scaramuzzino 2012).

While the relative importance of public funding can be questioned if compared with other sources of funding and in international comparisons, the Swedish public sector over the years has built up a comprehensive and extensive system of funding that specifically targets CSOs. This system includes funding at the municipal, regional, and national levels and has traditionally privileged “membership organizations, where member activities and the importance of the movement for democracy are values often stressed, and where the measure of success and influence is a large body of members and widespread participation” (Lundström and Svedberg 2003, 224). Immigrant organizations, for example, have been granted funding on the basis of membership and representations at both the municipal and national levels (Scaramuzzino 2012). The underlying idea is that CSOs fill an intrinsic social need, and this is why the funding can be used relatively freely.

In addition to organizational funding, there are more performance-­oriented funding opportunities that are often related to projects of different kinds. Project grants are distributed for specific purposes and activities and are limited by clearly defined project goals and time frames. While the organization grants thus mainly aim at generating effects on organizations, project grants are expected to have direct effects in terms of public benefit or for a specific target group (Danielson, Zetterberg, and Amnå 2009). Previous research has shown that project grants have become more frequent at the expense of organizational grants (Johansson 2005; Danielson, Zetterberg, and Amnå 2009).

As will be discussed later in this chapter, ESF funding is always linked to a specific project and might thus contribute to what has been described as the projectification of Swedish CSOs’ activities (Hedling and Meeuwisse 2015, 46). This development describes a shift of focus in the financial support system targeting CSOs from the earlier focus on organizational input in terms of membership, and thus a more representational and democratic role, to a more recent emphasis on output in terms of capacity to contribute to social development and welfare (cf. Danielson, Zetterberg, and Amnå 2009).

The European Social Fund

The history of European funds goes back to the first European programs of the 1970s and 1980s. The nature and the political role of European funding systems has progressively developed over time from being neutral to becoming strategically and politically oriented. A turning point in this process was the canceling of the program to combat social exclusion by the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC). Since then the European Commission (EC) has been required to follow the rules of the European Economic Community and to be supervised by committees created for this purpose. A consequence of this development has been that strategic and political goals have been introduced into the European funding systems (Sánchez-Salgado 2010).

Within these processes behind the political reorientation of the European funding systems, the alignment of the ESF within other European strategies such as the European Employment Strategy (EES) and Lisbon/Europe 2020 strategy has been emphasized. The ESF has thus been understood as both a financial tool that is able to facilitate and amplify national changes in line with the EES (Weishaupt 2009) and as a political tool aimed at implementing the Lisbon/Europe 2020 priorities on employment at the domestic level (Sánchez-Salgado 2013).

The role of the structural funds in implementing the revised Lisbon strategy has been highlighted in previous studies (Hartwig 2007; Mendez 2011), mainly with regard to European institutional arrangements and programming documents (Sánchez-Salgado 2013). Few studies have addressed the translation of the ESF into domestic agendas (Verschraegen, Vanherck, and Verpoortenet 2011). The results of these studies suggest an impact on national policies by even modest ESF funding (Sánchez-Salgado 2013, 3), and there are indications that the European funding system functions as a (soft) governance tool for the EU.

Some argue that, as a political tool, ESF funding facilitates the practical implementation of the Lisbon/Europe 2020 goals on employment because through such funding the European priorities are both translated into national programming documents and practically implemented at the local level (Sánchez-Salgado 2013). Sánchez-Salgado (2013) emphasizes how despite a tendency of member states to support their own policy preferences, the EC’s officials can make use of the Lisbon/Europe 2020 goals to promote the EC’s priorities. But she also shows how the practical implementation of European priorities primarily rests on the degree of European pressure, on the EC’s monitoring capacity, and on other facilitating factors such as national and local contextual features identified at the level of economic development and administrative centralization (Sánchez-Salgado 2013). In fact, “when European goals remain broad or ambiguous, the ESF has been mainly used to pursue the agenda of domestic actors” (Sánchez-Salgado 2013, 22).

It has been argued that EU funding supports the interests of disadvantaged groups and thus addresses certain imbalances in the system of interest representation. In this respect the EU funding of CSOs in the social welfare area tends to resemble the model of associative democracy. More specifically, on the one hand it tends to support many groups that voice the concerns of excluded citizens, while on the other hand it ensures effective and open representation of those groups that fulfill certain normative criteria and certain features such as representativeness and autonomy. According to this perspective, high dependency on EU funding does not necessarily mean lack of autonomy for European CSOs. It can, however, be related to a bureaucratization of politics (Sánchez-Salgado 2014a).

All in all, although it is clear that the EU, through its funding opportunities, has shaped the landscape of civil society at both the EU and domestic levels, this has not necessarily meant a loss of autonomy for the CSOs that have become dependent on public funding from the EU. The effects of EU funding have not been homogeneous across countries, policy areas, and types of CSOs, which seems logical considering the intrinsic diversity of the civil society sector (Sánchez-Salgado 2014b).

The EQUAL Community Initiative

The EQUAL Community Initiative was part of the ESF for the programming period 2001–7. The goal of EQUAL was to tackle discrimination and disadvantage in the labor market. According to the guidelines of the EC, these goals had to be met through projects implemented following the principles of partnership and empowerment, the latter being an early formulation of the principle of shared management. Hence, the principles of partnership and empowerment aimed at allowing and increasing the involvement of CSOs in projects within the social welfare area and fostering the economic and organizational development of CSOs (Scaramuzzino et al. 2010).

Almost 650 organizations were involved in the Swedish EQUAL program, and among the participants the majority were public organizations while significantly fewer were nonstate actors. Among these nonstate actors a larger share was represented by CSOs compared to for-profit organizations. In this respect, we find significant differences between the Swedish program and similar programs in other European countries. In most countries, CSOs were in the majority and public organizations in the minority. All country programs were similar in terms of the limited participation of for-profit organizations. Arguably, the Swedish program was marked by the prominent role of public organizations in labor market programs, a role that included the main responsibility for service production and provision.

However, within development partnerships promoted by the EC in the EQUAL Community Initiative, cooperation between public, private, and voluntary organizations was highly encouraged. A study of the CSOs participating in the Swedish EQUAL program (Scaramuzzino et al. 2010) shows that the program managed to attract a variety of organizations such as the women’s movement, immigrant organizations, organizations representing people with disabilities, the Church of Sweden, and other religious organizations. Most CSOs represented the social partners (e.g., national, regional, or local unions) or interest groups for socially excluded or discriminated groups in society. This is hardly surprising since the EQUAL program aimed at bringing people back into the labor market.

The reasons why organizations participated in the EQUAL program varied greatly. Some aligned themselves to the formal objectives of the program and tried to include unemployed people in the labor market, while others mainly participated as a way to create goodwill for their organizations. Another key reason was to gain financial support. Even though public organizations tended to dominate the Swedish EQUAL program, it provided CSOs with ample financial support. However, desirable positions within partnerships (e.g., to be coordinators and/or the organization controlling the finances within the partnership) were mainly held by public organizations. In some cases this appeared to be part of an intentional strategy, while in other cases it was a response to expectations from the ESF. Public organizations functioned as a guarantee for a certain degree of organizational, financial, and administrative stability within partnerships (Scaramuzzino et al. 2010).

Although these positions were generally held by public organizations, some smaller user organizations were highly successful in taking advantage of opportunities within the program. They developed the general competence for running different EU projects and the administrative capacity to coordinate projects involving several different partners; they also managed to exercise influence in the partnerships they participated in. These organizations gained a lot from participating in the EQUAL program and increased their position vis-á-vis other CSOs (Scaramuzzino et al. 2010).

A comparison of immigrant organizations’ participation in the Italian and Swedish EQUAL programs also showed that the programs in both countries had been able to stimulate projects at the national and local levels. The activities were similar even if the methods and the target groups were sometimes different, mirroring the different migratory systems in which the two countries were embedded. This suggests that the EQUAL program to a certain extent contributed to a Europeanization of the national civil societies and of the national social and integration policies in Italy and Sweden (Scaramuzzino 2012).

The model of development partnerships, however, exposed many small CSOs to the risk of being relegated to inferior positions within the partnership. Competition regarding positions of coordination and financial management often meant that leading positions within the partnership were held by public organizations in Sweden and by large CSOs in Italy (Scaramuzzino 2012). Seldom w...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Tables
• Preface
• List of Abbreviations
• Introduction: Europeanization, Civil Society, and the Swedish Welfare State
• Section I
• Section II
• Section III
• Section IV
• Index