Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Supplement logoLink to Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Supplement
. 2019 Jan 27;Sup 18:31–39. doi: 10.15288/jsads.2019.s18.31

Why Research Should Pay Attention to Effects of Marketization of Addiction Treatment Systems

Jessica Storbjörk a,*, Kerstin Stenius a,b
PMCID: PMC6377013  PMID: 30681946

Abstract

Objective:

Researchers generally assume that addiction treatment systems can be viewed as entities and planned with the citizens’ best interests in mind. We argue that another steering principle, the market logic, has permeated many Western World treatment systems but is neglected in research. We demonstrate how it may affect system-level planning, service provision, and the service users.

Method:

We draw on an ongoing Swedish study, with some Nordic references, using several data sources: (1) public statistics on treatment expenditures and purchases; (2) interviews with service users (n = 36) and their service providers (n = 23) on different market features; (3) an observation of a large public procurement process concluding framework agreements based on competitive tendering; (4) interviews with officials involved with steering of the system and procurement (n = 16); (5) a workshop on procurement in the Nordic countries (n = 11 participants); and (6) 77 interviews with professionals, managers, and elected representatives.

Results:

We outline seven propositions that call for further research attention: public procurement, as regulated in the European Union, is not suitable for addiction treatment; marketization challenges democracy, equity, needs assessment, and treatment planning; marketization causes new accountability problems and idle monitoring; marketization causes fragmentation and obstructs coordination and continuity of care; marketization causes unification of services and favors big bureaucratically sophisticated providers; treatment professionals’ values are downplayed when a mistrust-based market logic replaces a trust- and needs-based logic; and marketization marginalizes treatment professionals and service users by limiting discretion.

Conclusions:

Findings point toward the importance of acknowledging and mitigating market principles in treatment systems to safeguard needs assessments and planning that serve the interests of the service users and the public.

Objectif :

Les chercheurs supposent en général que les systèmes de traitement des dépendances peuvent être considérés comme des entités et que les soins sont planifiés en prenant en compte le plus grand intérêt des citoyens. Nous soutenons qu’un autre principe directeur, la logique de marché, s’est infiltré dans plusieurs systèmes de traitement en occident, mais qu’il a été négligé dans la recherche. Nous en démontrons les impacts sur l’organisation du système de soins, la prestation de services ainsi que les utilisateurs de services.

Méthode :

Nous nous appuyons sur une étude suédoise en cours ainsi que sur quelques références scandinaves, en utilisant plusieurs sources de données : (a) des statistiques publiques sur les achats et les dépenses liées aux traitements; (b) des entrevues avec des utilisateurs de services (n = 36) et les professionnels qui leur ont procuré des services (n = 23) à propos des différentes caractéristiques du marché; (c) l’observation d’un vaste processus public d’acquisition conduisant à des accords-cadres fondés sur des appels d’offres; (d) des entrevues avec des fonctionnaires impliqués dans la direction du système de soins et de l’approvisionnement (n = 16); (e) un groupe de travail sur les systèmes d’approvisionnement dans les pays scandinaves (n = 11 participants); (f) 60 entrevues avec des professionnels, gestionnaires et députés.

Résultats :

Nous présentons sept propositions qui devront être approfondies par d’autres recherches : les systèmes d’approvisionnement publics, tels qu’ils sont réglementés dans l’UE, ne sont pas adaptés au traitement de la toxicomanie; la commercialisation amène des enjeux sur le plan de la démocratie, de l’équité, de l’évaluation des besoins et de la planification des traitements; la commercialisation entraine de nouveaux problèmes de reddition de comptes et nuit aux mesures de surveillance; la commercialisation amène également l’unification des services et favorise la création de grandes organisations à la bureaucratie complexe; elle marginalise les professionnels et les utilisateurs de services en limitant leur pouvoir discrétionnaire et en imposant une logique de contrat qui repose sur la méfiance.

Conclusion:

Les résultats soulignent l’importance de reconnaitre et d’atténuer le rôle des principes de commercialisation dans les systèmes de traitement afin de préserver les intérêts des utilisateurs de services ainsi que du public dans l’évaluation des besoins et la planification des services.

Objetivo:

Los investigadores generalmente suponen que los sistemas de tratamiento de la adicción pueden ser vistos como entidades y planificado con los mejores intereses de los ciudadanos en mente. Se argumenta que otro principio de dirección, la lógica del mercado, ha calado en muchos sistemas de tratamiento en el mundo occidental, pero se descuida en la investigación. Demostramos cómo puede afectar la planificación a nivel de sistema, la provisión del servicio y los usuarios del servicio.

Método:

Nos basamos en un estudio realizado en Suecia en curso, con algunas referencias nórdicos, utilizando varias fuentes de datos: (a) las estadísticas públicas sobre los gastos de tratamiento y compras; (b) entrevistas con usuarios del servicio (n = 36) y sus proveedores de servicios (n = 23) sobre diferentes características del mercado; (c) una observación de un gran proceso de contratación pública que concluye acuerdos marco basados en licitaciones competitivas; (d) entrevistas con funcionarios involucrados en la dirección del sistema y las adquisiciones (n = 16); (e) un taller sobre adquisiciones en los países nórdicos (n = 11 participantes); y (f) 60 entrevistas con profesionales, gerentes y representantes elegidos.

Resultados:

Describimos siete proposiciones que requieren más atención de la investigación: La contratación pública, según lo regulado en la UE, no es adecuado para el tratamiento de la adicción; mercantilización desafía a la democracia, la equidad, la evaluación de las necesidades y la planificación del tratamiento; causa nuevos problemas de responsabilidad y monitoreo inactivo; provoca la unificación de los servicios y favorece a los grandes proveedores burocráticamente sofisticados; y margina a los profesionales de tratamiento y usuarios de servicios al limitar la discreción e imponer una lógica de contrato basada en desconfianza.

Conclusiones:

Los hallazgos apuntan a la importancia de reconocer y mitigar los principios del mercado en los sistemas de tratamiento para salvaguardar las evaluaciones y planificación de necesidades que sirven a los intereses de los usuarios del servicio y del público.

Addiction treatment systems research prioritizes treatment needs/demands estimates, holistic planning, and implementation of coordinated systems (e.g., Ritter et al., 2014). Typically, these approaches perceive the system as an entity governed by policymakers with the citizens’ best interests in mind, striving for a treatment response that matches needs, legislation, and established principles for equity and professional conduct (Klingemann & Storbjörk, 2016).

We aim to show how an alternative steering principle, the market logic as part of and pushed ahead by New Public Management (NPM; Hood, 1991), may affect the planning, service provision, and service users of addiction treatment systems. NPM has permeated service systems of many Western countries (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). “You cannot see, touch, smell or hear the NPM. It is a rhetorical and conceptual construction . . . open to re-interpretation” (Pollitt, 2007, p. 110). NPM argues that business concepts, techniques, and values can improve the public sector’s cost efficiency, quality, and accountability. NPM contains such practices as introducing competition in the public sector, using contracts as the coordinating device, disaggregation into decentralized corporatized units, purchaser–production splits, management by results, performance measurement, and treating service users as customers (Hood, 1991, 1995; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). NPM may thereby alter the systemic field of norms and justifications for action and relationships (Björk, 2016; Raynard, 2016; Reay & Hinings, 2009; Scott, 2008). It accommodates new actors and introduces specific incentives: competition, nondiscrimination of service producers, and profiteering. Competition as the fundamental idea shapes all actors involved (Meagher & Szebehely, 2013).

We base our argument on the Swedish and Nordic addiction treatment systems, which are highly decentralized (except for specialized treatment in Norway) to local political structures, with independent tax funding and responsibility to provide treatment. They have fairly similar social and health care legislation and professional (social work–medicine) anchorage (Edman & Stenius, 2007). Purchaser–provider splits within the public sector and outsourcing production to nonpublic providers were introduced in the late 1980s. Examining national and local market variations and procurement practices gives arch data for analyses.

Marketization has been studied in a Nordic context with regard to eldercare (Meagher & Szebehely, 2013) and youth care (Forkby & Höjer, 2008). Meagher and colleagues (2016, p. 14) argue that Swedish youth care, driven by NPM, unintentionally transformed from a “regionally coordinated, public social service system . . . into a thin, but highly profitable, national spot market in which large corporations have a growing presence.” The incentives and opportunities for all actors changed. Compared with youth and eldercare, addiction treatment is a small sector in terms of financial turnover and political significance. Importantly, the service users have a weak position. However, similar NPM trends are permeating Swedish addiction treatment (Bergmark, 2010; Bergmark & Oscarsson, 1994; Edman, 2016; Oscarsson, 2000; Stenius, 1996, 1999). The trends are visible but weaker in the other Nordic countries (Bjerge, 2012; Nesvåg & Lie, 2010). Still, few studies empirically scrutinize possible implications of marketization (primarily as competitive public procurement, privatization of production, and managerialism) for needs assessment and fulfillment, service supply, and coordination and equity in addiction treatment systems.

Guided by our empirical data sources and the scarce evaluation literature (including adjacent service areas), we acknowledge advantages with market models and procurement practices (Ritter et al., 2014). The pre-NPM systems certainly had their problems, including paternalism and nonprofessionalism (Edman & Stenius, 2007). Fairness for providers, greater transparency, a growing interest in treatment quality, cost awareness, and demands for estimations of required treatment capacity can be noted as improvements. Some studies support improved process measures, such as reduced waiting times or increased capacity by pay-for-performance models (Hull & Ritter, 2014; McLellan et al., 2008), but there is an overall lack of evidence for effects on outcomes (Hull & Ritter, 2014; Humphreys & McLellan, 2011; Jones et al., 2018; Pedersen et al., 2011; Pollitt & Sorin, 2011). Potential disadvantages for addiction treatment systems are highlighted in our attempt to formulate propositions and identify knowledge gaps calling for thorough research.

Method

Our propositions draw upon the study “Benefits, tensions and inconsistencies in the health and welfare system: The case of New Public Management in Swedish substance abuse treatment” (approved by the Ethical Review Board of Stockholm, EPN 2016/446-31/5; applying informed consent). The ongoing study involved six substudies, each using different data collection methods as summarized below and further elaborated in a technical report (Storbjörk & Stenius, in press). Here, we refer to these substudies as Sources 1–6 to help the reader appreciate how the propositions were derived from different research methods and samples. Sources 1 and 2 are fully elaborated in published reports. Sources 3–6 refer to ongoing work.

Source 1 refers to analyses of official statistics with national/total coverage to chart municipal expenditures and purchases of services (as opposed to in-house production) from different types of providers since 1999, and producers of residential care since 1976 (Storbjörk & Stenius, 2018).

Source 2 involved analyses of paired interviews of service user (n = 36) and staff (n = 23) experiences of different NPM features (procurement, framework agreements/competitive tendering, performance measurement) in the Stockholm area (Storbjörk et al., 2016; Storbjörk & Samuelsson, 2018).

Source 3 refers to an observation of a procurement process in which a procurement agency served as agent for approximately 80 of Sweden’s 290 municipalities and in competitive tendering concluded framework agreements with about 110 treatment providers.

Source 4 consists of preliminary analyses of interviews with national-level officials involved in development, government, and procurement of addiction treatment (n = 16).

Source 5 implied arranging and analyzing the documented outputs of a 2-day workshop of the Nordic Welfare Centre on addiction treatment procurement practices with 11 participants from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

Source 6 comprises preliminary analyses of interviews with 77 professionals, managers, and policymakers in sampled local and regional treatment administrations representing organizations low and high on NPM permeation.

Results

Neglected implications: Seven propositions calling for attention

We start with the observation that public procurement is at odds with addiction treatment systems (Proposition 1), followed by possible implications of NPM on the planning level (2–3), the composition and functioning of the service provision level (4–6), and effects of market models for service users (7). Our claims are interlinked and somewhat inconsistent, as are features of NPM.

1. Public procurement at odds with addiction treatment.

Rooted in imperative European Union (EU) Directives (Directive 2004/18/EC; replaced by Directive 2014/24/EU), public procurement seems at odds with or has not yet found its ultimate form within addiction treatment. EU legislation on public procurement regulates the relations between public purchasers and different providers, aiming to ensure the free movement of goods and services across borders, and the equal treatment of different providers. The legislation will shape who produces services, which services are produced, and how these services are evaluated.

Health and social services are “no ordinary commodities” (Landsorganisationen i Sverige, 2017), and the directives partly acknowledge national interests: Threshold values for obligatory public procurement are higher, and a variety of procurement forms are accepted. Still, several problems remain: the principle of competition (vs. coordination), the complicated purchasing procedures with its bureaucracy and transaction costs, and the difficulty in defining and following up on quality criteria. Procurement practices may thereby cause a problematic “commodification” of care (Bjerge, 2012; Zaremba, 2013). Treatment systems are searching for (a) a procurement model that corresponds with social/health care legislation, obliging the (central/local) government to offer treatment according to population and individual needs; (b) treatment quality definitions and requirements, including service user participation, good client–therapist relations, and treatment continuity; and (c) models ensuring cost efficiency.

We found that procurement rules and practices differ across the Nordic countries, despite the overarching EU Directives (Source 5). The Swedish Public Procurement Act (LOU 2016; introduced 1992, revised 2007 and 2016) follows the EU directives most closely, adhering to principles of nondiscrimination and equal treatment of all providers. Sweden’s health and welfare sectors, including addiction treatment, increasingly house for-profit enterprises, including venture capital companies (Storbjörk & Stenius, 2018). This has stimulated polarized public debate on profits, and “drainage” of tax money (SOU, 2016).

The Norwegian government, also relying on EU Directives in this case, has favored associations and foundations in addiction treatment by facilitating the exclusion of for-profit providers from competitive tendering (Bogen & Backer Grønningsæter, 2016). Danish surveillance legislation (Lov om socialtilsyn, 2013) enables scrutiny of profit margins and requires financial transparency that, in practice, stops the moving of profits within company groups or abroad. Norway and Denmark have thus taken political and legal efforts to limit competition on the market.

Procurement of services such as addiction treatment can require specific forms (Source 5), recognized in recent procurement law revisions, and more explicitly in Norway, Finland, and Denmark (Hankintalaki, 2016; Anskaffelsesloven, 2016; Udbudslov, 2015) than in Sweden. A negotiation process may be suitable for health/welfare services (Schneider et al., 2016). Problems with procurement may arguably reflect a lack of competence in local administrations. Sources 3–4 and 6 indicate varying local practices of procurements, a slow learning process, and increasing adherence to legislation. It is a major challenge to formulate procurement and contract documents to achieve desirable care and avoid legal disputes, and to reconcile market and health/welfare legislations and logics. One side stresses the rights of the providers, the other the rights of the service users. Longer contract periods, negotiated contracts, and continuous developments and dialogues during the contract period have been implemented in some Swedish municipalities, and more so in Norway (Sources 4–5).

National variations in applying procurement legislation were a key to varying marketization permeation in eldercare (Szebehely & Meagher, 2013). Addiction treatment demonstrates varying market loyalty, and fumbling/experimental searches for good models: The first ambition of research should be to capture variations and pros and cons of different practices.

2. Marketization challenges democracy, equity, planning, and population needs assessments.

Treatment system planning should embrace partnership between authorities, service providers, and users, and should be grounded in local expertise (Ritter et al., 2014). Marketization may compromise such balanced partnership. The politics–market relationship seems to be changing. Earlier policies sought more clearly to mitigate (market) inequalities and secure citizens’ rights, equity, and the common good. Recent policies appear to promote (larger) enterprises that are expanding in Sweden, and to some extent in Finland (Sources 1 and 5) (Anttonen & Meagher, 2013; Esping-Andersen, 1985; SOU, 2016). A strengthened coalition between some policymakers and big companies has been noted in the public debate. That most political parties accept profiteering while most citizens oppose such welfare privatization mirrors this close relation (Lindh, 2015; Nilsson, 2016). Power is redistributed in economized politics (Bergmark & Oscarsson, 1994; Stenius, 1999). Widmalm (2017) suggests a new “enterprise corporatism” of close Government–Capital ties, posing a threat to democracy. The growing power of corporate chains limits the ability of policymakers to direct and regulate the welfare sector (Meagher & Szebehely, 2013), and the role of private providers cannot be to safeguard equity on high-quality services to all citizens (Source 6) (Blomqvist, 2004).

Procurement may increase quality control of the providers submitting tenders but needs assessments and planning are likely to be weakened. Our study suggests that needs assessments are transferred from local to regional/national levels, which compromises local needs. Complex procurement processes are increasingly handed over to procurement specialists and centralized to lower workloads and transaction costs. Norway seeks to favor continuity and comprehensive coverage. Overall needs assessment is problematic in the other Nordic countries when different types of problems and services are handled in numerous procurements (Sources 3–6). Lack of contacts between procurers and social services, and lack of user involvement in procurement are, however, problems acknowledged in Sweden and addressed in the new Finnish procurement legislation (Sources 2–5) (Kaukonen, 2014; Schneider et al., 2016).

Politicians, professionals, and service users may experience curtailed discretion in determining needs and required services based on equity and population needs. The risk is that those with a strong voice in the market—for-profit enterprises, bureaucrats with expertise in contract law and finances, and the most resourceful citizens—decide what, where, and how treatment is provided (Source 2) (Vamstad & Stenius, 2015). Mistrust of the public sector as purchaser and mistrust between providers are increased when procurement laws encourage lodging formal complaints over procedures. Cooperation is undermined.

3. Marketization causes new accountability problems and does not solve monitoring problems.

The question of accountability for the quality and accessibility of care is complex (McLellan et al., 2007). It becomes even more troublesome with NPM (Pierre & Peters, 2017) when administrations responsible for treatment provision are separated from care producers. Accountability is regulated partly by legislation and inspection, and partly by detailed contracts.

The degree of openness in tenders and pricelists (i.e., trade secrets) differs. Swedish competition rules also stress what a producer promises to do in a tender, whereas a provider’s previous negative performances are paid less or no attention. Some local procurement practices ask bidders for references, whereas others argue that subjective judgments and competition laws are difficult to reconcile (Sources 3, 5–6).

NPM is intertwined with a growing auditing bureaucracy (Power, 1997). Performance monitoring can improve quality and control of services and is important regarding accountability (Ritter et al., 2014). Purchasers also declare that procurement demands have led to better quality (and perhaps increased costs) (Sources 3–4, 6), yet quality may also be undermined by profit-making incentives and cost-cuttings (Source 6) (Meagher & Szebehely, 2013). NPM’s tendency to equate quality and accountability with documentation and monitoring of quantitative outputs (Sources 3, 6) may also lead providers to favor statistics of measurable interventions over treatment outcomes (Moore & Fraser, 2013). Contract conformity follow-up is a challenge in all Nordic countries. Of note, no one systematically monitors treatment outcomes (Sources 2–6). Transaction costs increase. Each provider has numerous contracts with numerous purchasers—each of them required to follow up on their contracts.

A mistrust-based contract logic may also cause problems. A contract regime, drawing on competition and mistrust, stresses detailed regulations, instruments of accountability, and routine controls, whereas in a trust-based regime, performance assessments only apply when there is reason to assume unsatisfactory accomplishments (Pierre & Peters, 2017). Treatment professionals are primarily guided by socialized norms and professional standards. Highly detailed contracts and performance criteria may diminish their willingness or possibility to put in that little extra effort—more than the contract obliges (Pierre & Peters, 2017) (Source 6). It was notable how a performance-based payment model pushed professionals toward encounters below their own and the patients’ hopes and expectations. Still, based on their professional beliefs, the staff sought to challenge such incentives (Source 2).

In sum, NPM causes tension between bureaucratic accountability and professional values. Paradoxically, performance measurement systems and contractual arrangements, meant to safeguard performances, may promote gaming the system (Burton & van den Broek, 2009; Evetts, 2009; Lu & Ma, 2006; Pierre & Peters, 2017). As increased monitoring does not solve accountability issues, research should study treatment quality dimensions across jurisdictions in and between countries, with and without outsourcing, or in one region before and after introducing competition and profit incentives. Do professionals in a quasi-market respond to the payer, the profit-maker, or the service user (Source 2) (Gingrich, 2011)?

4. Marketization causes fragmentation and obstructs coordination and continuity of care.

NPM reforms have been found to prevent fundamental preconditions for effective addiction treatment. NPM creates a fragmented system with linear transfer of responsibility (Moore & Fraser, 2013; Nesvåg & Lie, 2010). Calls for tender may aim to promote coordination and continuity (Source 3), but tenders are evaluated separately: bidders compete and are granted individual contracts. A provider may be awarded a contract for assessment but lose the treatment contract to another provider (Source 3). The competition logic weakens interconnections of the system and can be conceptualized as the antithesis of coordination (Bergmark, 2010; Klingemann & Storbjörk, 2016). Post-NPM literature stresses reintegration and needs-based holism (Dunleavy et al., 2006). Finland has attempted to integrate services for improved continuity and lowered costs, but the efforts turned into an immense reform proposal (Finnish Government, 2018) entailing marketization, freedom of choice, and large procurements. This conflicts with the integration goal (Source 5). Continuity, not only for the service user but also for the providers, is also counteracted by short-term contracts (often 2 plus potentially 2 more years) (Sources 5–6). Further, while Norway seeks to counteract such problems by applying contracts with longterm notice (Source 5), long-term fixed contracts can impede response to changing demands and hinder new providers from entering the field (Sources 5–6) (Ritter et al., 2014).

With shifting power relations comes fragmentation affecting overall planning (see #2). Municipalities can gain strength and may put pressure on treatment producers through joint and centralized procurements. But it is also evident that they lose power to decide who will serve as their producer. It is up to the bidders to submit tenders. Purchasers seek to balance their requirements to assure that reputable units will qualify and rogue providers are barred. To do this, the purchasers use specific formulations in the complex procurement documents (Sources 3–4, 6). In this process, decision-makers may lose focus on the most important matters. Public procurement may thus counteract a good mix of services and cause a mismatch between population needs, service demands, and available capacity. Whether this happens and how it can be counteracted should be further studied, as well as how coordination is possible in a system governed by rivalry.

5. Marketization causes regimentation and favors big bureaucratically sophisticated providers.

Stenius (2011) and West (2011) highlight the mix of services for all groups of substance users in the centrally or locally planned addiction treatment systems of the 1980s. Producer type diversity increased in the 1990s (Source 1) in accordance with bourgeois goals. Yet, marketization seems to encourage provider regimentation (Kaukonen, 2014). For-profit enterprises now dominate provision of purchased addiction care in Sweden, at the expense of NGOs (Source 1; see Norwegian alternative, #1). The tendency toward corporate acquisition of smaller enterprises is troublesome, and cartels can manipulate purchasers. As small, often not-for-profit, units have traditionally had an important innovative role in Nordic addiction treatment (Sources 1, 3–5), the new EU directive promotes participation of smaller enterprises. The administrative load, detailed monitoring, and necessity for vast contract law competence in advanced procurements (Sources 3, 6) favors large bureaucratically sophisticated organizations. Detailed procurements may require bidders to demonstrate everything from clean criminal records to provision of organic food (Source 3). Framework agreements do not promise any customers and presuppose financial margins to outlast empty beds. This disfavors small providers and must be considered in pricing if prices are fixed during the contract term—Year 1 appears expensive. In addition, lock-in effects may counteract innovations during contract periods (Kaukonen, 2014; Sources 3–4, 6).

Purchasers’ demands for measurable products may also produce streamlining and uniformity of treatment content and packaging, and hamper consumer choice and needs fulfillment (Bjerge, 2012; Stenius, 2011). Producers may be forced into the categories decided by the procurement documents and service users into package deals of, for example, five sessions per price unit (Sources 2–3) (Vamstad & Stenius, 2015). One development area could focus on how proper needs assessments can counteract potential loss of diversity driven by marketization.

6. Treatment professionals’ values are downplayed when a mistrust-based market logic replaces a trust- and needsbased logic.

As noted in #3, marketization has been claimed to coincide with a shift from trust to contracts and mistrust (Pierre & Peters, 2017; Sulkunen, 2007). Over the last 30 years, Sweden appears to have turned from trust-based to mistrust-based relations in public administration (Montin, 2016), and also toward detailed steering of addiction treatment staff (Creutzer, 2014; Statskontoret, 2016). The bureaucratic control–professional autonomy balance shifts (Christensen & Lægreid, 2011; Gingrich, 2011). Some speak of de-professionalized social and medical professions, prompted by NPM (Bjerge, 2012; Christensen & Lægreid, 2011; Evetts, 2009; Power, 1997), whereas others claim that such control may cause employees to “shirk” at work (Pierre & Peters, 2017).

Procurement principles may undermine the importance of social workers’ judgment and previous experiences of and accrued collaboration with different providers, if they are forced to adhere to rankings in framework agreements. National treatment guidelines and steering documents are incorporated into more advanced procurement documents, which strengthens this “superstructure” (Sources 2–3, 6).

Some providers and bidders manage to provide honeyed images of their organization and activities that do not match the treatment actually provided (Source 2) (Alvesson, 1990). This stresses the importance of the social workers/professionals as a mitigating party, and the significance of continuous follow-up of contracted services. Several logics compete with different views on quality and how it can be captured: Social workers may stress respectful encounters and relational aspects, whereas procurers must rely on checklists of safety aspects and certificates.

We suggest more theoretical and empirical studies on the compatibility of these logics and on how incompatibility issues may be managed to serve the interest of the service users.

7. Marketization may marginalize service users.

Turning to the service user level and to how marketization may affect needs fulfillment and unmet demands, much is already found in previous propositions, such as unification that limits choices.

Evidence is inconclusive, but Jones et al. (2018) found that payment by results led to poorer access and treatment completion. Privatization and performance measurement may disfavor the less “profitable” with the most severe problems by causing customer selection such as cream skimming and more care for the healthy and wealthy (Hansen Löfstrand, 2012; Hartman, 2011; Järvinen, 2002; Kaukonen & Stenius, 2005; Moore & Fraser, 2013; RiR, 2014; SOU, 2016).

NPM suggests stronger customer orientation, but whether it offers substance users more involvement, choice, and patient-centered care is debatable. NPM may obstruct user involvement through the absence of procured services for certain groups, restrictions imposed if desired services are not contracted or top-ranked, or performance-management system incentives (Sources 2–3, 6) (Storbjörk & Samuelsson, 2018). There is an interesting discrepancy between procurers’ voices stressing individual needs over competition/LOU, and the accounts by service users and professionals of limiting effects in daily practice as imposed by LOU (Sources 3–5, 6).

Further, choice mechanisms are rare in addiction treatment (Source 6) (Schneider et al., 2016; Stenius, 2015). A system in which the service user chooses the most appropriate treatment will, claim the advocates, improve effectiveness. A Swedish study showed that the least resourced service users, including addiction services, experienced the least possibilities in choice systems and were the least satisfied with the services (Vamstad & Stenius, 2015)—a social gradient also in terms of choice (Blomqvist, 2004). Moreover, if treatment fails in a system with far-reaching choice, treatment providers may be exonerated: the responsibility can be unfairly imposed on the service users by, for instance, excluding them from further services (Scourfield, 2007). Users become individual consumers that shall choose (and may make the wrong choice). They will not form political pressure groups (Stenius, 2015).

Purchasers may carefully design contracts to prevent cherry-picking. But private providers cannot be forced to take on the responsibility for the well-being of the population. Ritter et al. (2014) argue that purchase practices affect addiction treatment outcomes. As such conclusions are inconclusive, it is crucial to establish how outcome effects are associated with market mechanisms, especially how vulnerable groups are handled in an increasingly marketized society.

Discussion

We have charted how marketization—managerialism, tangible privatization of treatment provision, strengthened for-profit enterprises, and procurement practices—may counteract core treatment systems principles, such as treatment according to needs, continuity, and user participation (Kaukonen, 2014). Population-based needs assessments become scattered and transferred to procurers. Rather than coordination, competition implies fragmentation, mistrust, and reduced possibilities of planning and control. Procurement may promote high-quality services, but long-term contracts with fixed fees may cause lock-in effects and suppress investments and innovations. Market forces may not match treatment demands if profit interests outweigh other principles, such as providing a full range of services to all citizens regardless of consumer strength. Linking monitoring and performance systems to payments in such contractual purchaser–provider relations may obstruct needs assessments and fulfillment when financial incentives arise for what is fed into the systems.

The pros and cons of marketization are inconclusive. Our findings imply the importance of acknowledging and mitigating market principles in treatment systems. Politicians need to make sure that the principles laid out in health and welfare legislation are not jeopardized by procurement laws and market logics. Needs assessments and planning activities shall serve the interests of the service users and the public. Market dimensions can no longer be ignored when conceptualizing and studying addiction treatment systems.

Limitations

Forthcoming publications will provide more conclusions from this ongoing study. NPM was introduced as a costefficient management model, and as Hood and Dixon (2015) show, cost analyses of administrative reforms are extremely difficult to pursue. Our study does not include such cost analyses. However, total costs for addiction treatment have not been reduced in the last decades (Storbjörk & Stenius, 2018). A further question to study would be, in line with Hood and Dixon’s analyses, whether NPM has increased the administrative costs in this sector.

Footnotes

This study was funded by a research grant from Riksbankens jubileumsfond – The Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences (No. P14-0985:1). The funding agency had no further role in the study design, analysis, or preparation of this manuscript.

References

  1. Alvesson M. Organization: From substance to image? Organization Studies. 1990;11:373–394. doi:10.1177/017084069001100303. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anttonen A., Meagher G. Mapping marketisation: Concepts and goals. In: Meagher G., Szebehely M., editors. Marketisation in Nordic eldercare: A research report on legislation, oversight, extent and consequences (pp. 13–22) Stockholm, Sweden: Department of Social Work, Stockholm University; 2013. Retrieved from http://vbn.aau.dk/files/80766101/Marketisation_in_Nordic_eldercare.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anskaffelsesloven. Lov om offentlige anskaffelser (anskaffelsesloven). LOV-2016-06-17-73. Naerings- og fiskeridepartementet (Norway). [Public Procurement Act. 2016 Act No. 2016-06-17-73. Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries.] Retrieved from https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2016-06-17-73.
  4. Bergmark A. On the idea of treatment systems. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2010;27:565–573. doi:10.1177/145507251002700602. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergmark A., Oscarsson L. Från producenternas paradis till marknadens retorik. Den socialtjänstbaserade missbrukarvården under 1980- och 90-talet [From producers’ paradise to the rhetoric of the market. Addiction care in the social services in the 1980s and 1990s] In: Pettersson U., editor. Socialtjänstens klientarbete. Från vision till marknad? [Client work in the social services. From vision to market?] (pp. 91–108) Lund: Studentlitteratur; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bjerge B. Structural reforms as new public management policy: Three dilemmas in Danish substance misuse treatment. In: Hellman M., Roos G., von Wright J., editors. A welfare policy patchwork: Negotiating the public good in times of transition (pp. 181–201) Helsinki, Finland: Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues (NVC); 2012. [Google Scholar]
  7. Björk A. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University, Department of Social Work; 2016. Evidence-based practice behind the scenes: How evidence in social work is used and produced. [Google Scholar]
  8. Blomqvist P. The choice revolution: Privatization of Swedish welfare services in the 1990s. Social Policy and Administration. 2004;38:139–155. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9515.2004.00382.x. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bogen H., Backer Grønningsæter A. Oslo, Norway: Forskningsstiftelsen Fafo; 2016. En ideell forskjell? om ideelle aktører i spesialisthelsetjenesten [An ideal exception? On NGOs in specialized care] Fafo-rapport 2016:30. Retrieved from https://www.fafo.no/index.php/zoo-publikasjoner/fafo-rapporter/item/en-ideell-forskjell. [Google Scholar]
  10. Burton J., van den Broek D. Accountable and countable: Information management systems and the bureaucratization of social work. British Journal of Social Work. 2009;39:1326–1342. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn027. [Google Scholar]
  11. Christensen T., Lægreid P. Complexity and hybrid public administration—theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review. 2011;11:407–423. doi:10.1007/s11115-010-0141-4. [Google Scholar]
  12. Creutzer M. New public management inom missbruksvården: Beroendeläkare i lära hos SAS [NPM within addiction treatment: Dependence doctors’ internship at SAS (Scandinavian Airlines)] Alkohol & Narkotika. 2014;108:14–17. Retrieved from http://www.can.se/globalassets/aon/2014/new-public-management-inom-missbruksvarden--beroendelakare-i-lara-hos-sas.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  13. Directive 2004/18/EC. Directive 2004/18/EC of the European parliament and the council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts the European parliament and the council of the European union. 2004 Retrieved from EU DIRECTIVE 2004/18/EC http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:134:0114:0240:EN:Directive,P.D.F.2014/24/EU.(2014)
  14. Directive; /24/EU. Directive 2014/24/EU of the European parliament and the council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing directive 2004/18/EC (European parliament and the council of the European Union) Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SV/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0024.
  15. Dunleavy P., Margetts H., Bastow S., Tinkler J. New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2006;16:467–494. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui057. [Google Scholar]
  16. Edman J. Depoliticising the political: Market solutions and the retreat of Swedish institutional drug treatment from state management. International Journal on Drug Policy. 2016;32:93–99. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.03.013. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Edman J., Stenius K., editors. On the margins: Nordic alcohol and drug treatment 1885–2007. Helsinki, Finland: Nordic Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research (NAD); 2007. [Google Scholar]
  18. Esping-Andersen G. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1985. Politics against markets: The social democratic road to power. [Google Scholar]
  19. Evetts J. New professionalism and new public management: Changes, continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociology. 2009;8:247–266. doi:10.1163/156913309X421655. [Google Scholar]
  20. Finnish Government. Regional government, health and social services reform: Government reform packages. 2018 Retrieved from http://alueuudistus.fi/en/frontpage.
  21. Forkby T., Höjer S. Ritual eller strategi – upphandlingar och ramavtal inom den sociala ungdomsvården [Ritual or strategy – procurement and framework contracts in youth care] Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift. 2008;15:115–134. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gingrich J. R. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2011. Making markets in the welfare state: The politics of varying market reforms. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hansen Löfstrand C. Homelessness as politics and market. In: Larsson B., Letell M., Thörn H., editors. Transformations of the Swedish welfare state: From social engineering to governance? New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012. pp. 247–261. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hankintalaki. Laki julkisista hankinnoista ja käyttöoikeussopimuksista (Hankintalaki). 1397/2016 29.12.2016. Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö (Finland). [Act on Public Procurement and Concession Contracts. Act No. 1397/2016 of 29 December 2016. Finnish Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (MEAE)] 2016 Retrieved from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2016/20161397.
  25. Hartman L, editor. Stockholm, Sweden: SNS Förlag; 2011. Konkurrensens konsekvenser: Vad händer med svensk välfärd? [Consequences of competition: What is happening in the Swedish welfare sector?] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hood C. A public management for all seasons? Public Administration. 1991;69:3–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hood C. The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 1995;20:93–109. doi:10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hood C., Dixon R., editors. A government that worked better and cost less: Evaluating three decades of reform. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hull P., Ritter A. Sydney, Australia: Drug Policy Modelling Program, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales; 2014. The potential role of pay-for-performance in alcohol and other drug treatment funding: A literature review. [Google Scholar]
  30. Humphreys K., McLellan A. T. A policy-oriented review of strategies for improving the outcomes of services for substance use disorder patients. Addiction. 2011;106:2058–2066. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03464.x. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03464.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Järvinen M. Hjälpens universum – ett maktperspektiv på mötet mellan klient och system [The universe of help – a power perspective on the encounter between client and system] In: Meeuwisse A., Swärd H., editors. Perspektiv på sociala problem [Social problem perspectives] (pp. 253–273) Lund: Natur och Kultur; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jones A., Pierce M., Sutton M., Mason T., Millar T. Does paying service providers by results improve recovery outcomes for drug misusers in treatment in England? Addiction. 2018;113:279–286. doi: 10.1111/add.13960. doi:10.1111/add.13960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kaukonen O. Helsinki, Finland: A-Clinic Foundation; 2014. PM. Hankintalain kokonaisuudistuksen valmistelu [total reform of the procurement act]. Sosiaali- ja terveyspalvelujen hankinta [Procurement of social- and health care services]. Mieli-OR. 22 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kaukonen O., Stenius K. Universalism under re-construction: From administrative coercion to professional subordination of substance abusers. In: Kildal N., Kuhnle S., editors. Normative foundation of the welfare state. The Nordic experience. London, England: Routledge; 2005. pp. 130–148. [Google Scholar]
  35. Klingemann H., Storbjörk J. The treatment response: Systemic features, paradigms and socio-cultural frameworks. In: Kolind T., Thom B., Hunt G., editors. The SAGE handbook of drug and alcohol studies – social science approaches (Vol. 1) (pp. 260–286) London, England: SAGE; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  36. Landsorganisationen i Sverige (LO) Stockholm, Sweden: 2017. LO:s yttrande över Ordning och reda i välfärden (SOU 2016:78) Retrieved from https://www.lo.se/start/lo_fakta/los_yttrande_over_ordning_och_reda_i_valfarden_sou_2016_78. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lindh A. Public opinion against markets? Attitudes towards market distribution of social services – A comparison of 17 countries. Social Policy and Administration. 2015;49:887–910. doi:10.1111/spol.12105. [Google Scholar]
  38. LOU. Lag (2016:1145) om offentlig upphandling. 1 December 2016. Finansdepartementet (Sweden). [The Public Procurement Act 2016:1145 of 1 December 2016. 2016 Swedish Ministry of Finance] Retrieved from http://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=2016:1145.
  39. Lov om socialtilsyn. Lov om socialtilsyn. Lov nr 608 af 13/06/2013. Børne- og Socialministeriet (Denmark). [Act on Social Supervision. Act No. 608 of 13 June 2013. Ministry for Children and Social Affairs] 2013 Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/97866/116283/F-1601940554/DNK97866Danish.pdf.
  40. Lu M., Ma C. T. Financial incentives and gaming in alcohol treatment. Inquiry. 2006;43:34–53. doi: 10.5034/inquiryjrnl_43.1.34. doi:10.5034/inquiryjrnl_43.1.34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. McLellan A. T., Chalk M., Bartlett J. Outcomes, performance, and quality: What’s the difference? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007;32:331–340. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.09.004. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2006.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. McLellan A. T., Kemp J., Brooks A., Carise D. Improving public addiction treatment through performance contracting: the Delaware experiment. Health Policy. 2008;87:296–308. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.01.010. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.01.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Meagher G., Lundström T., Sallnäs M., Wiklund S. Big business in a thin market: Understanding the privatization of residential care for children and youth in Sweden. Social Policy and Administration. 2016;50:805–823. doi:10.1111/spol.12172. [Google Scholar]
  44. Meagher G., Szebehely M., editors. Marketisation in Nordic eldercare: A research report on legislation, oversight, extent and consequences. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University, Department of Social Work; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  45. Montin S. Stockholm, Sweden: Statskontoret; 2016. Statens styrning av kommuner, en historisk översikt. Bilaga 2 till rapport statens styrning av kommunerna [The state’s government of municipalities; a historical overview] (No. 2016:24 Bilaga 2) Retrieved from http://www.statskontoret.se/publicerat/publikationer/2016/statens-styrning-av-kommunerna/ [Google Scholar]
  46. Moore D., Fraser S. Producing the problem of addiction in drug treatment. Qualitative Health Research. 2013;23:916–923. doi: 10.1177/1049732313487027. doi:10.1177/1049732313487027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Nesvåg S., Lie T. The Norwegian substance treatment reform: Between new public management and conditions for good practice. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2010;27:655–666. doi:10.1177/145507251002700610. [Google Scholar]
  48. Nilsson L. Välfärdspolitik och välfärdsopinion i Sverige och västra götaland 2015 [Welfare policy and welfare opinion in Sweden and in västra götaland 2015] In: Bergström A., Harring N., editors. Hållbarhetens horisont. Samhälle, opinion och medier i västsverige [The horizon of sustainability. society, opinion and media in western Sweden] (pp. 119–148). Göteborg, Sweden: SOM-Institutet, Göteborgs universitet. 2016. Retrieved from https://gup.ub.gu.se/publication/248803. [Google Scholar]
  49. Oscarsson L. Den socialtjänstbaserade missbrukarvården under 1990-talet – förutsättningar, utveckling och behov [Addiction care in the social services in the 1990s – prerequisites, development and needs] In: Szebehely M., editor. Välfärd, Vård, Omsorg [Welfare, Treatment, Care] (SOU 2008:38, forskarantologi [research anthology]) (pp. 57–106) Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  50. Pedersen M. U., Hesse M., Bloomfield K. Abstinence-orientated residential rehabilitation of opioid users in Denmark: Do changes in national treatment policies affect treatment outcome? Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2011;39:582–589. doi: 10.1177/1403494811407673. doi:10.1177/1403494811407673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Pierre J., Peters B. G. The shirking bureaucrat: A theory in search of evidence? Policy and Politics. 2017;45:157–172. doi:10.1332/030557317X14845830916703. [Google Scholar]
  52. Pollitt C. The new public management: An overview of its current status. Administratie Si Management Public. 2007;8:110–115. Retrieved from http://www.ramp.ase.ro/en/_data/files/articole/8_01.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  53. Pollitt C., Bouckaert G. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2011. Public management reform: A comparative analysis: New public management, governance and the neo-Weberian state. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pollitt C., Sorin D. The impacts of the new public management in Europe: A meta-analysis. (No. COCOPS Work Package 1, Deliverable 1.1) European Commission 2011 [Google Scholar]
  55. Power M. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1997. Audit society: Rituals of verification. [Google Scholar]
  56. Raynard M. Deconstructing complexity: Configurations of institutional complexity and structural hybridity. Strategic Organization. 2016;14:310–335. doi:10.1177/1476127016634639. [Google Scholar]
  57. Reay T., Hinings C. R. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies. 2009;30:629–652. doi:10.1177/0170840609104803. [Google Scholar]
  58. RiR. Stockholm, Sweden: Riksrevisionen. RiR, 2014, 22; 2014. Primärvårdens styrning – efter behov eller efterfrågan? [Primary care steering – based on needs or demands?] [Google Scholar]
  59. Ritter A., Berends L., Chalmers J., Hull P., Lancaster K., Gomez M. Sydney, Australia: Drug Policy Modelling Program, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales; 2014. New horizons: The review of alcohol and other drug treatment services in Australia. [Google Scholar]
  60. Schneider T., Karlsson N., Stenius K. Helsingfors/Stockholm, Sweden: Nordens välfärdscenter (NVC); 2016. Upphandling av missbruksvård i norden [Procurement of addiction services in the Nordic countries] [Google Scholar]
  61. Scott R. W. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008. Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. [Google Scholar]
  62. Scourfield P. Social care and the modern citizen: Client, consumer, service user, manager and entrepreneur. British Journal of Social Work. 2007;37:107–122. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch346. [Google Scholar]
  63. SOU. Stockholm, Sweden: Wolters Kluwer; 2016. Ordning och reda i välfärden: Betänkande av välfärdsutred ningen [Bringing order into welfare: Report by the welfare inquiry]. (SOU 2016:78) Retrieved from http://www.regeringen.se/rattsdokument/statens-offentligautredningar/2016/11/sou-201678/ [Google Scholar]
  64. Statskontoret. Statens styrning av kommunerna [Central government’s steering of municipalities] 2016 http://www.statskontoret.se/In-English/publications/2016---summaries-of-publications/central-governments-steering-of-municipalities-201624] No. 2016:24). Stockholm: Statskontoret [For a summary in English see: . Retrieved from http://www.statskontoret.se/publicerat/publikationer/2016/statens-styrning-av-kommunerna/
  65. Stenius K. From co-operation to competition. The division of labour between ‘public’ and ‘private’ providers in Swedish 20th century alcoholism treatment. Nordisk Alkoholtidskrift. 1996;13:4–18. (English suppl.) [Google Scholar]
  66. Stenius K. Lund: Arkiv förlag; 1999. Privat och offentligt i svensk alkoholistvård: Arbetsfördelning, samverkan och styrning under 1900-talet [Private and public in Swedish alcohol treatment: Division of labor, cooperation and steering in the 1900s] [Google Scholar]
  67. Stenius K. Market forces do not solve the problems. Addiction. 2011;106:2070–2071. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03633.x. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03633.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Stenius K. Valfrihet och beroende: Om val i missbruksvården [Choice and dependence: On choice in substance abuse treatment] In: Vamstad J., editor. Valfri välfärd: Ett medborgarperspektiv på den svenska välfärdsstaten [Choice in welfare: A citizen perspective on the Swedish welfare state] (pp. 181–212) Lund: Arkiv förlag; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  69. Storbjörk J., Christophs I., Samuelsson E., Milander Yazdanpanah S. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University, Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs (SoRAD); 2016. A study of service user involvement in practice in the Swedish substance abuse treatment system: Methods, participants, and outcomes. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-133815. [Google Scholar]
  70. Storbjörk J., Samuelsson E.2018Brukarinflytande på vårdmarknaden – en paradox i missbruks- och beroendevården? [Service user involvement on the care market – a paradox in addiction treatment?] Sallnäs M., Wiklund S.Socialtjänstmarknaden – om marknadsorientering och konkurrensutsättning av individ- och familjeomsorgen [The social services market – on marketization and competition in individual and family care] (pp. 85–115.Stockholm, Sweden: Liber [Google Scholar]
  71. Storbjörk J., Stenius K. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University, Department of Public Health Sciences; in press). Government, organization and daily practice in the Swedish addiction treatment system: Technical report. [Google Scholar]
  72. Storbjörk J., Stenius K. The new privatized market – a question of ideology or pragmatism within the Swedish addiction treatment system? Social Policy and Administration. Advance online publication. 2018 doi:10.1111/spol.12414. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sulkunen P. Re-inventing the social contract. Acta Sociologica. 2007;50:325–333. doi:10.1177/0001699307080939. [Google Scholar]
  74. Szebehely M., Meagher G. Four Nordic countries – four responses to the international trend of marketisation. In: Meagher G., Szebehely M., editors. Marketisation in Nordic eldercare: A research report on legislation, oversight, extent and consequences. Stockholm, Sweden: Department of Social Work, Stockholm University; 2013. pp. 241–288. Retrieved from http://vbn.aau.dk/files/80766101/Marketisation_in_Nordic_eldercare.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  75. Udbudsloven. Udbudsloven. LOV nr 1564 af 15/12/2015. Erhvervsministeriet (Denmark). [The Public Procurement Act. Act No. 1564 of 15 December 2015. Danish Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs.] 2015 Retrieved from https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=175507.
  76. Vamstad J., Stenius K. Lund: Arkiv förlag; 2015. Valfri välfärd: Ett medborgarperspektiv på den svenska välfärdsstaten [Choice in welfare: A citizen perspective on the Swedish welfare state] [Google Scholar]
  77. West R. Payment by results and smoking cessation support. Addiction. 2011;106:1730–1731. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03541.x. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03541.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Widmalm S. DN debatt: Politiker och medborgare oense om vinst i välfärden [Politicians and citizens disagree on profits in the welfare sector, op-ed article]. Dagens Nyheter. 2017, 27 February Retrieved from http://www.dn.se/debatt/politiker-och-medborgare-oense-om-vinst-i-valfarden/
  79. Zaremba M. Stockholm, Sweden: Weyler; 2013. Patientens pris. ett reportage om den svenska sjukvården och marknaden [The price of the patient. A report on Swedish health care and the market] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Supplement are provided here courtesy of Rutgers University. Center of Alcohol Studies

RESOURCES