Introduction

The concept of npm and its consequences for professional work have already been discussed in previous chapters of this book. Newman stressed that npm is not a singular entity, but a wide range of reforms that have been enacted and experienced very differently in various countries. Nevertheless, the overview of Hood (cited in the contribution of Tummers, Steijn & Bekkers) can be seen as giving the essence of what is generally meant by the introduction of npm reforms. In this chapter we will especially focus on the second component mentioned in Hood’s overview, e.g. the introduction of explicit standards and measurements of performance, or more specifically, performance-based accountability.

We will focus our attention on its consequences, in the light of relations between professionals and people who need social care or social support. Interestingly, npm became attractive because it promised to democratize professional practices, including social work. It promised to take citizens seriously: they should be listened to and have influence on what social workers offer. Although this democratic promise certainly covers not all of what npm promised, it is a crucial element in the embrace of npm in the field of social work. The promise of performance accountability is that ‘performance information is not merely managerial useful, but also contributes to the quality of democratic debate and to the ability of citizens to make choices’ (Pollitt 2006: 52).

The critique on social work as an undemocratic practice preceded the rise of npm. It was uttered fervently from the mid-1970s onwards and can be summarized by highlighting four components: social work was a) disempowering, b) paternalistic, c) self-centred, and d) unaccountable. npm was put forward as a more democratic practice, by empowering citizens, by giving them voice and choice, and by serving their demands and providing accountability. The core question of this chapter is to what extent npm manages to fulfil this democratic promise in social work. Our empirical data are derived from interviews with Dutch social workers and their managers.

We will first have a closer look at the major criticisms and argue why they can be understood as attacks on the undemocratic features of social work.