Een narratieve analyse van maatwerk in de Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning 2015. Conflicterende betekenissen van maatwerk

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

In this article we study the policy ideal of providing personalized public services which has gained considerable ground in recent years: both in the Netherlands and abroad.Personalization may be seen as an example of an ‘empty signifier’ (Laclau 1985): it is subject to diverse interpretations without making the distinctions explicit. As such, several policy objectives and interests can be covered without disagreeing about its overarching importance. It is therefore important to identify the different meanings given to personalization and determine the extent to which these can be reconciled. The case at hand is the Social Support Act (SSA) in the Netherlands which entails the open norm to provide tailored support. Policymakers presented this act as a remedy for numerous social problems, such as the fragmented provision of care and increased regulatory pressure.By conducting a narrative policy analysis of personalization in policy discourse, we identified four different narratives of personalization: personalization as market logic of matching supply and demand; personalization as professional discretionary room, personalization as the emphasizing of self-reliance and problem-solving abilities of the clients themselves and those around him, and lastly, personalization as the coordination of integrated care.These different meanings in policy discourse are not easily harmonized in daily practices. Based on recent empirical research on the existing bottlenecks in executing the SSA, we were able to identify key tensions between different narratives of personalization. For example, focusing primarily on activating one’s own problem-solving capacities is at the expense of professional room to adjust care to what the client needs. Integrated care has also lost its meaning due to the emphasis on empowerment and is mainly instrumental in obtaining a complete picture of the citizen and his network. These tensions create dilemmas for professionals, citizens and local policymakers. Moreover, in our case personalization provided the legitimacy for extensive public service reform in the changing welfare state, while political hang-ups, such as the associated cuts, could be circumvented. It is therefore of great importance that national policymakers and the legislator reflect on the complexities of personalization as a policy ideal and take into account the tensions between different meanings of personalization in practice.