Introduction
Contemporary governance increasingly relies on cross-sector collaboration, recognizing the limitations of siloed approaches in addressing complex societal challenges. As societal issues grow in complexity, the third sector—encompassing nonprofit organizations and civil society actors—plays an ever more crucial role in these partnerships, bringing distinct resources and perspectives to collaborative efforts with public sector agencies. Understanding how state strategies shape and influence these collaborations is essential. The nexus between the government and the third sector has undergone a significant and transformative evolution. However, research specifically examining the strategies employed by the state within these collaborative frameworks remains limited. This article aims to fill this gap and calls for further research in this critical area.
The evolving governance landscape has significant implications for how the state interacts with the voluntary sector, particularly given its limited ability to regulate third sector organizations (TSOs) directly, and the rise of cross-sector collaboration reflects a broader shift in governance regimes. The transition from traditional public administration (PA) to new public management (NPM) and then to new public governance (NPG) has had a substantial influence on how public and voluntary actors operate. Specifically, it has changed how these actors navigate and address complex societal problems. These modes of governance co-exist and compete as different approaches to managing public affairs, influencing how public actors and TSOs work together to implement public policy (Andersen et al., Reference Andersen, Greve, Klusen and Torfing2020). The literature on governance and collaboration highlights that combining elements from multiple governance practices, while potentially leading to dilemmas and paradoxes (Torfing et al., Reference Torfing, Sørensen and Breimo2022) can ultimately provide more robust public governance in the face of contemporary challenges (Carstensen et al., Reference Carstensen, Sørensen and Torfing2023).
Complex challenges, often termed “wicked problems”, are notoriously resistant to resolution. Despite the continuous effort to find solutions to such problems, the strategies used to manage them can have significant impacts (Rittel & Webber, Reference Rittel and Webber1973). State policies reveal various governance strategies aimed at tackling complex policy problems, which also reflect the governance regimes mentioned above. Authoritative strategies centralize decision-making, while competitive strategies reflect a “win–lose” mindset. Collaborative strategies, in contrast, prioritize shared problem-solving and mutual benefits for more holistic and sustainable solutions (Bjorgo & Roiseland, Reference Bjorgo and Roiseland2018; Roberts, Reference Roberts2000).
This article analyses how state-level documents conceptualize and approach cross-sector collaboration with the third sector. It explores the underlying assumptions, intended outcomes, and potential tensions embedded within these documents by systematically examining policy frameworks and strategic plans. The aim is to uncover the potentials and paradoxes inherent in state strategies, highlighting both opportunities and challenges in navigating these partnerships to effectively address complex societal issues. The central question guiding this study is as follows: how do state strategies approach cross-sector collaboration involving the third sector, and what potentials and paradoxes can these create in addressing complex societal challenges?
This study examines Norwegian state policies that aim to foster the social inclusion of children in organized leisure activities through cross-sector collaboration. Although Norway is known as one of the best countries in which to grow up, these policies are rooted in child poverty and social exclusion, which can be considered truly complex problems. The number of children experiencing severe economic hardship and social marginalization is alarming and still increasing (Fløtten, Reference Fløtten2019; Hyggen & Ekhaugen, Reference Hyggen and Ekhaugen2021; Wilkinson & Pickett, Reference Wilkinson and Pickett2017).
Moreover, Norway presents an interesting context for studying state strategies promoting cross-sector collaboration. Like other Scandinavian countries, it exhibits a unique dynamic with both a strong state and a strong civil sector. This dynamic is particularly pronounced in the culture and leisure policy field (Trætteberg & Enjolras, Reference Trætteberg and Enjolras2023), making it a “most likely” case. The field is characterized by the state’s reliance on the third sector and offers a compelling case for understanding emerging approaches to cross-sector collaboration. It represents a high degree of local discretion, formalized interaction, and mutual resource dependence between municipalities and TSOs, creating fertile ground for collaborative policymaking and implementation (Trætteberg & Enjolras, Reference Trætteberg and Enjolras2023). Conversely, if this policy area fails to foster genuine cross-sector collaboration, it suggests significant challenges in achieving such partnerships more broadly.
Specifically, this paper examines the “Declaration on Leisure Activities” (DLA), a Norwegian policy initiative introduced as one of multiple measures outlined to address the aforementioned challenges of child poverty and social exclusion. It was part of the government´s strategy “Children Living in Poverty” (Ministry of Children and Equality and Social Inclusion, 2015) and united the Norwegian Government, The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS), and several TSOs and civil society actors. The mandate is to mobilize and join resources to enable every child´s participation in organized leisure activities. The DLA has gained attention and support within the public and third sectors at the national and local levels (Departementene, 2020; Erdvik & Ervik, Reference Erdvik and Ervik2022).
This study contributes to the literature on cross-sector collaboration and public governance. The findings have both academic and practical implications, particularly for understanding the potentials and paradoxes within state strategies that aim to foster collaboration between public sector agencies and civil society actors. These insights can inform the future design and implementation of more effective collaborative policies.
Theoretical Framework
Complex societal challenges demand a multifaceted approach to governance. As the “wickedness” of a problem increases, the need for a diverse governance toolkit grows. This has prompted governments to explore various management strategies, resulting in a shift in the landscape of governance within public administration. The quest has seen the public sector evolve from rigid bureaucratic frameworks characterized by hierarchical structures and stringent regulations to market-oriented models prioritizing efficiency and competition. However, neither approach has led to adequate resolution of complex policy problems, which require extension beyond the capacity of any single actor. Consequently, a growing emphasis on NPG encourages collaborative efforts between various sectors, including the third sector (Osborne, Reference Osborne2010). In contrast to prior modes of governance, PA and NPM, NPG is regarded as the regime that provides the most beneficial conditions for cross-sector collaboration involving the third sector (Pestoff & Brandsen, Reference Pestoff and Brandsen2010). TSOs are no longer considered merely as advocates for vulnerable groups in society or service providers but as central partners to the public sector (Tortzen, Reference Tortzen2019).
The co-existence of the various modes of governance has resulted in a complex regime (Christensen et al., Reference Christensen, Lie and Laegreid2008). This composite configuration of governance—where PA's ordered structures, NPM's efficiency quests, and NPG's collaborative force coalesce—does not infer a replacement but rather an integrative layering that offers a diversified array of strategies for policy formulation and implementation (Andersen et al., Reference Andersen, Greve, Klusen and Torfing2020; Carstensen et al., Reference Carstensen, Sørensen and Torfing2023). This research examines state strategies for engaging the third sector through the lens of three distinct governance approaches: authoritative, competitive, and collaborative (Bjorgo & Roiseland, Reference Bjorgo and Roiseland2018; Roberts, Reference Roberts2000). Each approach corresponds to a specific mode of governance: authoritative strategies align with the PA, competitive strategies align with the NPM, and collaborative strategies align with the NPG. These approaches differ significantly in their assumptions regarding the roles of public sector actors and TSOs, the distribution of power, and the mechanisms used to achieve desired outcomes.
Authoritative governance strategies are methods used to simplify and manage complex issues known as wicked problems (Roberts, Reference Roberts2000). Although Rittel and Webber (Reference Rittel and Webber1973, p. 161) opposed the “morally objectionable” practice of taming a wicked problem by treating it as a straightforward problem, this strategy makes policymaking and problem management amenable (Head, Reference Head2019). Complex policy issues defy simple definitions and localization, making their problem statements intrinsically linked to the resolutions proposed. Policy development thus becomes an exercise in continuous refinement, where strategies may shift alongside an evolving understanding of the problems themselves (Head & Alford, Reference Head and Alford2015; Rittel & Webber, Reference Rittel and Webber1973). The “domestication” of such a problem involves leaving some parts of the issue unaddressed, which leads to settlements, not solutions (Hoppe, Reference Hoppe2010). In this way, central governments bring a sense of order to policymaking, solidifying their command by framing both problems and solutions. This method echoes PA’s emphasis on hierarchy and structured problem-solving (Roberts, Reference Roberts2000).
Authoritative strategies, by streamlining stakeholder involvement and leveraging expert knowledge, can efficiently address complex policy problems. With fewer voices in the discussion, the chances of conflicts decrease, and it becomes easier to reach a consensus and make decisions. This provides operational efficiency, allowing experts to handle issues within their domain of expertise without interruption (Roberts, Reference Roberts2000). Despite their efficiency, authoritative strategies risk overlooking crucial perspectives and disempowering citizens. Concentrated decision-making power, while expedient, can lead to misinterpretations, inadequate solutions, and missed opportunities for collective learning (Roberts, Reference Roberts2000).
When a wicked problem has been tamed, the main governance strategy within this approach is to control through regulation and funding (Bjorgo & Roiseland, Reference Bjorgo and Roiseland2018). This aligns with a hierarchical mode of governance, where the state dictates funding priorities and terms of engagement, leaving limited space for input from the voluntary sector. Funding to TSOs might come with stringent conditions and reporting requirements, restricting their flexibility and autonomy. This rigidity can stifle innovation and prevent organizations from adapting their approaches to meet evolving community needs.
Competitive governance strategies emphasize marked-based mechanisms and competition for resources. They are rooted in the concept of a "zero-sum game," where the success of one party in defining and solving a wicked problem means the loss of another (Roberts, Reference Roberts2000). This win–lose mindset underscores the competitive nature of interactions where power and control are central. Stakeholders aim to build a larger power base than their opponents and to define problems and solutions in their favor. Successful competitors who can consolidate and sustain their power over time often shift from competitive to authoritative strategies.
Competitive strategies, while driving innovation and preventing power imbalances, can lead to resource inefficiencies by diverting resources from direct problem-solving (Roberts, Reference Roberts2000). In dealing with tame(d) problems, the competitive strategy typically means outsourcing problem management to the actor winning based on quality or price (Bjorgo & Roiseland, Reference Bjorgo and Roiseland2018). Government agencies act as regulators and funders, setting performance targets and incentivizing TSOs to compete for contracts or grants. While competition can drive innovation and efficiency, as noted above, it may also foster fragmentation, duplication of efforts, and a focus on short-term outcomes over long-term sustainability. Additionally, smaller or less resourced TSOs may struggle to compete effectively, potentially exacerbating inequalities within the sector.
Furthermore, competitive strategies can be employed to compel other stakeholders into collaborative efforts by highlighting and intensifying awareness of the problem at hand (Bjorgo & Roiseland, Reference Bjorgo and Roiseland2018). However, balancing competitive dynamics with authoritative and collaborative strategies is essential for managing complex policy problems.
Collaborative governance strategies are increasingly recognized as vital approaches to managing wicked problems that cannot be easily solved by traditional methods, leveraging the collective strength of diverse stakeholders. Collaborative strategies seek to create value for all parties involved, transforming the problem-solving process into a “win–win” scenario rather than the “zero-sum” game represented by the competitive strategies described above (Roberts, Reference Roberts2000).
Applying a collaborative approach to problem management offers several benefits. It allows stakeholders to share resources and risks, as resource pooling implies sharing the costs and benefits of addressing complex challenges, as well as spreading financial risk. Collaborative strategies can foster both innovation and efficiency. Integrating diverse perspectives and expertise can lead to more creative solutions and a more comprehensive understanding of complex challenges. Simultaneously, collaboration can streamline service delivery and reduce duplication of effort. The strategy also entails involving a wider range of actors in the decision-making process, ensuring that diverse viewpoints are considered. This inclusivity can lead to comprehensive and acceptable solutions (Roberts, Reference Roberts2000). Furthermore, ongoing dialog and collaborative efforts strengthen relationships among actors, fostering a sense of shared purpose and community.
There are also considerable disadvantages of collaborative strategies. They may entail increased complexity and transaction costs, as collaboration requires significant effort to manage interactions among numerous actors. More frequent meetings and complex communication channels often lead to coordination challenges (Roberts, Reference Roberts2000). There is also a need for skill development, as effective collaboration is a learned skill that requires practice. Many individuals, particularly those accustomed to hierarchical or competitive environments, may need more experience or training to engage in problem-solving effectively. Developing these skills and adapting to collaborative methods can consume additional time and resources. Moreover, there is a risk of unproductive outcomes. Without careful management, collaborative efforts can develop into conflict or become unproductive. Dialogs can escalate into debates, hardening positions and making future consensus even more elusive. The results are uncertain, and the process may end without a clear resolution despite a significant investment of time and effort (Roberts, Reference Roberts2000).
Collaborative approaches also differ between tame and wicked problems. Tame problems are typically predefined and handled through structured and formalized partnerships among a limited set of actors who agree upon a specific course of action. However, the ambiguous nature of wicked problems necessitates a more inclusive approach. Addressing such problems requires engaging a broader range of stakeholders with diverse perspectives to navigate the complexities, uncertainties, and contested solutions inherent to these challenges. These processes are dynamic and fluid, requiring open-ended engagement and the ability to adapt as the understanding of the problem evolves. This implies an orientation toward exploring and iterating on potential solutions, recognizing that the problem itself may need redefinition over time (Bjorgo & Roiseland, Reference Bjorgo and Roiseland2018) (Table 1).
Potentials and paradoxes within governance strategies
Potentials |
Paradoxes |
||
|---|---|---|---|
Governance strategies |
Authoritative |
Simplified decision-making; process-efficiency; operational efficiency |
Risk of error; narrow problem framing; lost opportunity of learning; reduced public engagement, rigidity |
Competitive |
Innovation and progress; problem resolution; political stability and balance; spreading power; intensifying awareness |
Resource inefficiency; short-term focus; fragmentation; increased inequalities |
|
Collaborative |
Shared resources and risks; enhanced innovation and efficiency; inclusivity and stakeholder engagement |
Increased complexity and transaction costs; limited collaboration skills; potential conflict and inefficiency |
|
Based on Roberts (Reference Roberts2000) and Bjorgo and Roiseland (Reference Bjorgo and Roiseland2018)
Data and Methods
This research investigates state strategies aimed at fostering the inclusion of children and young people in leisure activities through cross-sector collaboration. By analyzing relevant policy documents, the article examines how these strategies approach collaboration with the third sector, exploring the potential implications for such partnerships. This study combines thematic analysis with Carol Bacchi’s “What’s the Problem Represented to Be?” (WPR) approach to policy analysis. This combination allows for a deeper understanding of not only what is being said about leisure activity participation and cross-sector collaboration but also how it is being framed and the underlying assumptions driving these representations (Bacchi & Goodwin, Reference Bacchi and Goodwin2016).
Data Material
Document analysis is an efficient method for tracking change and development that requires data selection instead of data collection (Bowen, Reference Bowen2009). This study draws upon publicly available documents produced by the state, with the DLA as its core. The process could be compared to “snowball sampling”, where I started with a small number of documents connected to the DLA, leading me further to other relevant documents (Bryman, Reference Bryman2016, p. 415). This resulted in a combination of policy strategies, government platforms, inaugural addresses, and white papers dating back to 2001. The material offers valuable insights into the state's evolving approaches to cross-sector collaboration with the third sector within this area, allowing for an examination of both specific strategies and measures and the broader development of overarching guidelines.
The DLA, originally from 2016 and revised and re-signed in 2022, is a four-page document. It includes background information, main objectives, pictures, and bullet points outlining necessary actions. It also features a list of signatory actors, encompassing a wide range of civil society actors, TSOs, and various state departments (see overview below).
Since underlying problems, such as poverty and social exclusion among children and young people, extend across multiple policy areas, the selected documents stem from various government departments and policy fields. These documents address concerns related to children and youth, social inequality and sustainability, public health, and the voluntary sector. Furthermore, they vary in length from the concise four-page DLA to extensive white papers exceeding two hundred pages. While the DLA includes signatures from numerous civil society actors, the focus is solely on state departments, aligning with this study's emphasis on state strategies.
Year |
Document title |
Department |
Type of document |
|---|---|---|---|
2001 |
The government's inaugural address |
Office of the Prime Minister |
Inaugural address |
2005 |
Political platform for government cooperation between The Labor Party, the Socialist Left Party, and the Centre Party 2005–2009 |
Office of the Prime Minister |
Political platform |
2005 |
The government's inaugural address |
Office of the Prime Minister |
Inaugural address |
2009 |
Political platform as basis for the government's work formed by the Labor Party, Socialist Left Party and Centre Party |
Office of the Prime Minister |
Political platform |
2013 |
Political platform for the Norwegian Government, formed by the Conservative Party and the Progress Party |
Office of the Prime Minister |
Political platform |
2013 |
The government's inaugural address |
Office of the Prime Minister |
Inaugural address |
2015 |
Children living in poverty. The Government's strategy (2015–2017) |
Ministry of Children and Equality and Social Inclusion |
Government strategy |
2016 |
The Declaration on Leisure Activities |
Office of the Prime Minister, the ministries of Children and Families, Culture and Equality, Labor and Inclusion, Local Government and Districts, Knowledge, Health and Welfare, and Climate and Environment |
National declaration |
2018 |
To experience, to Create and to Share. Art and Culture for. with and by Children and Youth |
Ministry of Culture |
White paper |
2018 |
Political platform for the Norwegian Government, formed by the Conservative Party, the Progress Party, and the Liberal Party |
Office of the Prime Minister |
Political Platform |
Political platform for the Norwegian Government, formed by the Conservative Party, the Progress Parts', the Liberal Party, and the Christian Democratic Party |
Office of the Prime Minister |
Political Platform |
|
2020 |
Equal opportunities in childhood. The Governments cooperation strategy for children and youth in low-income families (2020–2023) |
The ministries |
Government strategy |
2022 |
The Declaration on Leisure Activities |
Office of the Prime Minister, the ministries of children and families, culture and equality, labor and inclusion, local government and regional development, education and research, health and care services, and climate and environment |
National declaration |
Data Analysis
This study’s analysis draws on thematic analysis and Carol Bacchi’s “What’s the Problem Represented to Be?” (WPR) approach to policy analysis. The WPR framework is used to explore how policies concerning organized leisure activities have been formulated and represented over time, recognizing that policy documents, while presented as objective, represent interpretations of the issues at stake. Instead of viewing solutions as an endpoint, this analysis uses them as starting points, recognizing that policy strategies, in outlining desired outcomes, also reveal competing problem representations. By “taking problems apart” (Bacchi, Reference Bacchi1999), this approach identifies and assesses the implicit problem representations embedded within proposed solutions, exposing how the “problem” has been constituted and thereby how the policy has come about.
The WPR approach challenges traditional perspectives, presenting policymaking as the authorities’ best effort in addressing existing problems. According to the WPR, governance is carried out through these problematizations (Bacchi & Goodwin, Reference Bacchi and Goodwin2016). Problems, then, are not merely objects to be discovered but are produced within the policymaking process itself and will have a significant impact on how a policy problem is to be dealt with. The DLA presents two problem representations this article investigates: 1) the need to ensure that every child can participate regularly in at least one organized leisure activity together with others and 2) the necessity of collaboration across the public and the third sector to address the first one.
While the WPR approach offers a valuable lens for critically examining policy documents, it is important to acknowledge the potential for researcher subjectivity in interpreting these texts. To ensure consistency and reflexivity and mitigate researcher bias, a thematic analysis was also conducted, drawing on established guidelines for qualitative data analysis. This involved a recursive process of data engagement, coding, and theme development (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2006, Reference Braun and Clarke2019). The documents were coded based on the following themes, which guided the analysis and helped uncover patterns related to the problem representations: cross-sector collaboration, co-creation, voluntary sector, leisure activities, child poverty, social exclusion, and the DLA.
Results
The empirical analysis reports the findings in three parts. The first two parts examine the problem representations of organized leisure activities and how they have evolved and the argument for cross-sector collaboration between municipal actors and TSOs as the solution. The third part looks at government measures related to strategies associated with the DLA and the DLA itself.
Problem Representation 1: Organized Leisure Activities–How did this come About?
As specified above, the DLA was initiated through the government strategy “Children Living in Poverty” (Ministry of Children and Equality and Social Inclusion, 2015), which proposed a wide range of measures to combat the problem of poverty affecting children and youth. Apparently, there is a mismatch between the problem and the solution; how are leisure activities supposed to affect the level of income in families with children? They do not. Nevertheless, they may ease some stress in the lives of families facing economic difficulties.
While leisure activities were first mentioned in initial government documents (inaugural addresses and political platforms) in 2009 (Stoltenberg), the living conditions of “poor families with children” were recognized and problematized by the government of Bondevik II in 2001. This document promised measures that would “include both finances, housing and incentives for work rather than passive receipt of benefits” (Bondevik, Reference Bondevik2001). Stoltenberg II initially aimed to abolish poverty altogether (Stoltenberg, Reference Stoltenberg2005a, Reference Stoltenberg2005b). By the time they reached their second period, these ambitions were modified, and the term “social exclusion” was introduced in this type of state document: “It is especially important to protect children from social exclusion due to the economic situation of their parents” (Stoltenberg, Reference Stoltenberg2009, p. 43). This platform also promoted leisure activities but with a different focus than today by funding vacations and recreational activities for children of low-income parents and assisting children with functional disabilities in participating. However, the main strategy for reducing poverty and inequalities among children and young people has remained “a good municipal economy, a social housing policy, an active labor market policy, free or reasonably priced collective goods and income assurances” (Stoltenberg, Reference Stoltenberg2009, p. 35).
After the 2013 government change, new policymakers also acknowledged that “many children grow up in poor families” (Solberg) and reframed the problem by linking poverty to children´s participation in social arenas:
The government will increase the use of activity requirements in welfare policy to lift more people out of poverty and into work. It should be easier to go from social security to work, and it should be worthwhile to work. The government will increase the one-off benefit for birth and adoption and facilitate a better social profile of parental payment for kindergarten and after-school care. Through this, more children will gain access to important social arenas. It will be an important goal for the government to ensure that children who grow up in poor families will have more equal opportunities. In this way, the government will strengthen the social safety net. (Solberg, Reference Solberg2013b)
This paragraph illustrates how the problem representation takes a different turn. First, poverty is problematized through the presentation of economic means to lift more people (parents) out of poverty. Then, children’s lack of access to social arenas is considered a problem. This turn creates confusion: is the problem poverty or is it lack of (access to) social arenas? The text represents multiple problems: 1) Increasing the use of activity requirements in welfare policy will move people from poverty to work; this is a problem in which it is too convenient for those not working and more demands will make them work, and work is the primary measure used to battle poverty; 2) easier transition from social security to work will encourage more people to work, and it should be worthwhile to work – implying that social security is too comfortable and that work is still a solution; 3) greater financial benefits for birth and adoption and bettering the social profile of parental payment for kindergarten and after-school care – economic means are presented as ways to solve economic problems; 4) the abovementioned measures will increase children’s access to social arenas – the problem is that many children lack access to social arenas, which should be targeted by work and other economic means; and 5) children from poor families should have equal opportunities – implying that they do not, and the government will address this by strengthening the social safety net.
The political platform was the first initial government document to suggest leisure activities as a way to fight economic and social inequality, though it stated that “The most important measures to combat poverty is a good school that evens out social inequality and an open working life with room for everyone” (Solberg, Reference Solberg2013a, p. 11). Therefore, the document declared that “The government will also strengthen measures that promote social integration for vulnerable children and young people, for example, leisure activities”, increasing the importance of leisure activities at a higher level and making social integration and inclusion a more significant part of the policy area of poverty. On the same page, the document also mentioned the need to improve public policies for immigrant integration and families affected by drug problems and mental health challenges, adding these factors to the causes of poverty.
By the time the Solberg government reached its second period, leisure activities were lifted among the main strategies (also through the DLA from 2016), stating that their main objective was a society with little inequality. In addition to good kindergartens and school systems to ensure equal opportunities, “work-oriented measures, integration, safe and decent living conditions, good health services and inclusion in leisure activities are important to combat poverty” (Solberg, Reference Solberg2018, p. 9). In their 2019 platform (Solberg, Reference Solberg2019, p. 4), they used the term “social sustainability” and said it required high social equality and low poverty. This term (social sustainability) made it more difficult to distinguish the presented problem causes and strategies.
The re-signing of the DLA in 2022, with some textual changes and more actors from TSOs and civil society, shows a shift in how the problem is framed. The main objective of the declaration, based on Article 31 of the CRC (children’s rights to recreational and leisure activities), states that “To realize this, all children, regardless of their parents' social and economic situation, must have the opportunity to participate regularly in at least one organized leisure activity together with others” (Government, Reference Government2016). The 2022 version (Government) is nearly identical, except that the formulation on how to achieve the goal looks different: “To realize this, all children must have the opportunity to participate regularly in at least one organized leisure activity together with others”. This is a shorter statement that has left out the part “regardless of their parents' social and economic situation”. This broadens the scope of the problem, but the problem representation remains the same: there is a need for organized leisure activities. The document further argues that this need should be met by cross-sector collaboration in local communities.
Problem Representation 2: “The Solutions must be Found Together”
The DLA highlights the role of TSOs, declaring that “the solutions must be found together” (Government, Reference Government2016, Reference Government2022). When the government strategy “Children living in poverty” introduced the declaration, there were clear expectations that the civil sector and TSOs would contribute:
The government's goal is that all children, regardless of the parents' economy, must have the opportunity to participate regularly in at least one organized leisure activity together with others. Therefore, the government will invite KS, the Association of NGOs in Norway, and the Norwegian Sports Association to establish shared objectives. The solution to reach children will vary from municipality to municipality, and the voluntary organizations and sports that already receive public support are expected to contribute to the various solutions. (Ministry of Children and Equality and Social Inclusion, 2015, p. 49)
This strategy aimed to follow-up on the National Audit Office's investigation of efforts to prevent and address child poverty (Riksrevisjonen, 2014). This said, among others, that the municipalities did not do enough to ensure that poor children and youth could participate in social arenas. The inquiry, from 2002 to 2014, criticized not only the municipalities but also the central government and their coordination of attempts to reduce the impact of child poverty (see also Fløtten, Reference Fløtten2019). Furthermore, the government strategy of “equal opportunities growing up” (The Ministries, 2020, p. 16) is to “contribute to promote new ideas and forms of collaboration. It is not just the public sector that can contribute to lifting children and young people in low-income families”. This implied a lack of new ideas, that current forms of collaboration are inadequate, and that the problem was not to be considered merely a concern of the public sector.
In both this white paper and another from KUD, the DLA is being presented as a model for new forms of collaboration:
Several municipalities have established models for participation and co-creation with voluntary organizations, private actors, and municipal enterprises. Here, the emphasis is on cooperation through shared knowledge and resources between several various actors, and citizens are invited to be involved in planning and implementation. The idea is to use all resources to create better local communities. Municipalities and voluntary cultural life are important for the offers that children and young people receive locally. The Declaration on Leisure Activities underlines how much it matters that the various services in the municipality and the voluntary organizations collaborate to get more children and young people involved in activities (Meld. St. 18, 2020–2021, p. 56–57)
The documents indicate an increased focus on social sustainability and the “efficient use of resources in society as a whole” (Meld. St. 13, 2018–2019, p. 21). They show that the government relies on third sector resources and that new and closer forms of collaboration are needed. These problem representations illustrate a change in the policy area and make civil society a co-owner of the problem.
Governance Measures–Focusing on the DLA
The government’s approach to including children and young people through organized leisure activities is mainly financial. They offer various grants for projects including children and young people in municipalities, where they encourage collaboration with civil society actors. The government strategies “Children living in poverty” and “Equal opportunities growing up” (Ministry of Children and Equality and Social Inclusion, 2015; The Ministries, 2020) present 22 measures within the chapters “Participation and inclusion–leisure, culture and sports” and “Increased participation and inclusion in leisure activities”. Eighteen of these measures are subsidy schemes that municipalities and/or TSOs may apply for. They have different arrangements, but all have specific focus areas with guidelines and obligations for the applicants.
The measures that stand out are those related to the DLA. In addition to the previously mentioned measure that initiated the declaration, the 2020 strategy, measure number 22: “Implementation of the DLA locally” (The Ministries, 2020, p. 74–75), states the following:
In 2020, the network for follow-up of the DLA emphasized increasing the local implementation and application of the DLA and contributed to establishing good collaboration between the voluntary sector and the municipalities. In 2019, the network contributed new knowledge about children’s and young people's participation and was behind several local projects that promoted increased participation. Examples are Save the Children's report Task 31: Right to leisure where barriers to participation are documented, and ALLEMED (ALLIN), prepared by The National Mobilization Against Poverty and Exclusion Among Children and Youth (NMPE), a tool for local realization of the declaration. The network will also look at how the work can be followed up locally. [...] The Directorate for Children, Youth and Families (Bufdir) is the secretariat for the work with the DLA. It shall contribute to the establishment of a network for the dissemination of expertise and experience, conferences, seminars, and meeting places for local pilot projects.
Launched in 2013, the NMPE is a broad initiative uniting national TSOs, academic environments, associations, and the government to ensure that all children in Norway can participate in leisure activities, regardless of their socioeconomic background. This collaboration led to the development of the DLA. The NMPE, funded by the government's "Subsidy for the inclusion of children and young people" grant, further developed the ALLIN-model ("all in"). This model provides municipalities with workshops and facilitates dialog between public actors and local TSOs to implement the DLA effectively. As part of this model, participants collaborate to identify specific inclusion initiatives, assign responsibilities, and create implementation plans (ALLEMED, 2022; Holte, Reference Holte2019).
Discussion
The discussion will explore the strategies the state employs in addressing complex societal challenges, particularly in fostering children's social inclusion through organized leisure activities, as outlined in the DLA. While the data do not allow for an analysis of the practical implications of specific governance strategies, the focus will be on understanding how state strategies approach cross-sector collaboration involving the third sector. The final section of the discussion delves directly into the DLA, considering both promising potentials and inherent paradoxes related to diverse governance strategies.
Combined Governance Strategies
The problems of child poverty and social exclusion can be considered truly wicked (Peters, Reference Peters2017), as their ambiguity, lack of clear resolution, and interconnectedness defy traditional problem-solving approaches. However, the first problem representation of the DLA centers on the need for organized leisure activities within the local communities.
The documents demonstrate the journey of the original wicked problems of poverty and social exclusion, targeted mainly by economic means during the first decade of the 2000s, to the proposed resolutions to relieve the consequences instead. These problems are high-level issues in Norwegian politics, and the discourse highlights the importance of organized leisure activities. Despite a broad consensus on the importance of preventing alienation and marginalization for welfare state sustainability (Trommald, Reference Trommald2017), social and public health policies often prioritize mitigating negative effects over addressing the systemic causes of poverty and exclusion (Head, Reference Head2022; Wilkinson & Pickett, Reference Wilkinson and Pickett2017).
There is a mismatch between the problem and the solution—child poverty targeted by organized leisure activities. This ambiguity creates an opportunity to turn this wicked problem into a lower-level issue related to the field of leisure activities in local communities. By doing so, the government may demonstrate that they are indeed addressing the problem. This approach would not work if the problem were straightforward. However, the need for organized leisure activities is considered an issue that more organized leisure activities would solve. Yet, this is not enough. Presenting collaboration as a solution to this problem representation is also considered a problem representation, implying that the efforts being made by local communities (municipalities and TSOs) collaborating to include children and young people through leisure activities are not sufficient. Focusing on organized leisure activities and cross-sector collaboration, rather than the barriers to participation for children and young people, increases the chances of mobilizing a larger part of TSOs and municipal agencies. The problem representations suggest that these actors must take responsibility for the matter and improve their efforts and collaboration modes while simultaneously pointing toward a collaborative strategy.
Taming wicked problems, such as child poverty and social exclusion, is an authoritative governance strategy. The state plays a crucial role in framing these issues, shaping public perceptions of both the issues and potential solutions (Head, Reference Head2022). Thus, the problem is partly structured and managed, with the state further actively addressing these (reframed and tamed) challenges through regulatory measures and targeted funding (Bjorgo & Roiseland, Reference Bjorgo and Roiseland2018). Alongside constitutions and taxation, these measures collectively grant or withhold legitimacy and authority to specific approaches (Hoppe, Reference Hoppe2010). Establishing the DLA is an example of such a legitimate approach, where the state has contributed substantially by funding The National Mobilization Against Poverty and Exclusion Among Children and Youth (NMPE), recognizing the problem representation put forth in the DLA. This initiative is financed through the grant scheme “Subsidy for the inclusion of children and young people”, and the NMPE network further developed the ALLIN-tool to support the local implementation of the DLA.
After taming the problems through authoritative strategies, the government shifts to competitive strategies, where the primary tool is outsourcing. The government orders through the grant schemes, and the local actors apply for and compete for funding. This tactic would not suit a complex challenge, as the requirements and guidelines of the grant schemes already set the problem and the solution. This approach leaves little room for new ideas and measures, although some funding options offer more flexibility.
Competitive strategies are also identified within the establishment of the DLA. First, making NMPE the central actor could be viewed as a method for outsourcing problem management (which is expected within competitive strategies applied to tame problems). Second, this can also be considered an approach to spread power and responsibility, which is how a competitive strategy deals with a wicked problem. Gathering and expecting relevant actors to contribute also opens up a wider search for new ideas and a more open call for solutions while highlighting and intensifying awareness of the issue (Bjorgo & Roiseland, Reference Bjorgo and Roiseland2018).
The development of the DLA initially resembled a collaborative strategy typically employed for more straightforward challenges. This approach was evident in the establishment of formal partnerships, such as the NMPE, and the signing of a national declaration, signifying a shared commitment to the initiative's goals. However, the implementation phase reveals a shift in strategy. While collaboration remains a key element, local-level implementation incorporates aspects of a competitive approach, often favored for addressing more complex, wicked problems. This suggests that the problem's complexity persists, prompting actors to join forces in a quest for concrete measures tailored to specific local needs and challenges. This approach combines authoritative and competitive strategies with a clear emphasis on collaboration.
Exploring Potentials and Paradoxes Within Governance Strategies: The DLA
Although an authoritative strategy presents possible drawbacks, the combination of governance strategies outweighs these concerns by encouraging central guidance and community input. While the DLA embodies a collaborative governance strategy through the ALLIN-framework, its policies are nonetheless shaped by authoritative and competitive dynamics. Although an authoritative strategy has already set the agenda for problem-solving, the guidelines for the realization of the DLA encourage communities to identify and define their local challenges and corresponding measures. This inclusive approach leads to increased engagement and empowerment among stakeholders, fostering a sense of shared responsibility through discussions of local issues. By emphasizing community-defined challenges, the DLA, carried out through the ALLIN-model's learning principle, avoids narrow problem framing and cultivates space for collective learning among actors.
The competitive strategy is rooted in a win-lose mindset, which risks leading the actors to perceive each other as opponents. Measures such as funding through grant schemes often favor public sector agencies and larger TSOs, as they have organizational structures that support this practice. They are often better at handling application portals, accounting procedures, and reporting requirements. This can put them at an advantage over many small-scale TSOs, which lack the same level of administrative capacity. This advantage in securing funding can further empower public sector agencies, allowing them to use an authoritative approach through dictating the terms of collaboration and potentially exacerbating the power imbalances between stakeholders.
In contrast, the DLA leverages the potential of the competitive strategy by promoting an open call for solutions among all relevant stakeholders in each community. This approach prevents fragmentation and duplication of effort as the actors engage in dialog and inform each other about their activities. Rather than competing for resources or influence, stakeholders engage in collective efforts, each making a unique contribution. Municipal actors and TSOs can unite around a shared goal by openly discussing challenges and brainstorming solutions. This approach does not imply sourcing out problem-solving, potentially diminishing the role of individual actors by favoring the “winners” of contracts or grants; instead, the strategy highlights and intensifies awareness of the problem and brings the actors together to find solutions.
While the initial gathering of all relevant stakeholders fosters inclusivity and efficiency by integrating diverse perspectives and promoting broad engagement, this can also increase the complexity of collaboration processes. The multiplicity of actors seeking voice and attention can lead to divergent viewpoints and hinder streamlined decision-making. However, the authoritative elements within the ALLIN-framework offer a counterbalance by providing clear direction and structure, particularly in managing meeting dynamics. Nevertheless, successful implementation relies on ongoing coordination efforts from all actors to ensure alignment and effective collaboration.
Moreover, the various measures of governance strategies complement each other in potentially beneficial ways. By reframing the problem within the context of leisure activities, the authoritative strategy creates opportunities for TSOs to strengthen their position as central actors at both local and national levels. Simultaneously, competitive measures, such as funding opportunities, offer tangible benefits to those implementing the DLA. However, it is essential to recognize the potential downsides of these measures. All actors, particularly those generating policies, need a shared understanding of these potential pitfalls to prevent escalating power imbalances and conflicts.
Conclusion
This article examined state strategies for cross-sector collaboration in addressing complex societal challenges, highlighting inherent potentials and paradoxes. Focusing on Norway's approach to child poverty and social exclusion, the study revealed a shift from tackling root causes (predominant in the early 2000s) to mitigating consequences through initiatives like the DLA. This exemplifies how authoritative strategies can reframe wicked problems into manageable challenges, prioritizing immediate well-being over addressing systemic issues.
Furthermore, state strategies related to the DLA reveal a complex interplay of governance approaches. Authoritative strategies provide the necessary direction and structure, ensuring a cohesive approach to problem-solving. The DLA, through the ALLIN-framework, underscores this by setting a clear agenda while encouraging local communities to identify and address their specific challenges. This approach fosters inclusivity and stakeholder engagement. However, this also introduces complexity. The authoritative elements within the ALLIN-framework offer a counterbalance by managing these dynamics, yet successful implementation demands ongoing coordination and alignment among all actors. While competitive strategies like grant schemes foster innovation and prevent monopolization of power, they can also exacerbate power imbalances, favoring organizations with greater administrative capacity. Balancing these dynamics requires ongoing efforts and is crucial to ensure equitable participation and effective problem-solving.
In conclusion, the state’s approach to cross-sector collaboration with the third sector, as exemplified by the DLA, illustrates the potential of combined governance strategies in tackling complex societal issues. While each strategy presents unique challenges, their integration offers a comprehensive framework that leverages the strengths of authoritative guidance, competitive innovation, and collaborative engagement.
Recalling the concerns about taming wicked problems (Churchman, Reference Churchman1967; Rittel & Webber, Reference Rittel and Webber1973), this study's empirical case may contribute to a nuanced perspective. While actors face challenges navigating co-existing and competing modes of governance within cross-sector collaborations, the initial problem's taming is not inherently immoral or dangerous. Instead, the DLA exemplifies a problem-solving strategy that, by combining various modes of governance, demonstrates both the necessity and the potential to foster collaborative practices applicable to other complex challenges. However, further research is crucial for understanding the long-term consequences of these combined governance strategies. Future studies should explore their practical implications, assess their tangible impacts on cross-sector collaboration, and identify effective strategies for navigating the inherent complexities. This empirical grounding will be essential for drawing definitive conclusions about their efficacy and scalability.
Finally, the study has limitations that should be mentioned. Focusing on state-level documents does not capture strategies employed by regional or local actors, including TSOs. Additionally, the analysis emphasizes problem representations and concrete measures within policy documents, potentially overlooking other valuable perspectives. Although limited in scope to the Norwegian context, the findings likely hold relevance for other Western countries.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Nord University.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
I declare that there are no conflicts of interest. There is no external funding for the research presented in the paper.
Open access
