1

Juridification and social citizenship in the Norwegian welfare state: towards a

multidimensional analysis

Henriette Sinding Aasen; Tine Eidsvaag; Katja Jansen Fredriksen; Siri Gloppen; Anne-Mette

Magnussen; Kristian Mjåland; Even Nilssen; Ingrid Rindal Lundeberg1

1. Introduction

Far-reaching processes of juridification are perceived to be at work in Norwegian society and

globally, with expanding and more detailed legal regulation, legal regulation of new areas,

conflicts and problems increasingly being framed as legal claims, authority shifting from

political bodies to courts and other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies,2 and a development

where a judicial way of thinking and acting penetrates new social fields.3 Legal rights

discourses are playing a greater role in political mobilisation and decision-making. The White

Paper on Power and Democracy (2003)4 raised concerns that these processes, which include

increasing international regulation, change the conditions of social and political life in ways

that erode democratic values and the terms of social citizenship. However, the nature and

extent of the juridification processes and their consequences are contested5 both in Norway

and abroad, and theoretical arguments and ideological positions often dominate the debates.

Empirical analyses of the nature, extent and consequences of juridification processes in

different sectors of Norwegian society have been scarce. In this article we propose an

analytical framework for empirical and normative analysis of juridification processes as they

play out in the Norwegian welfare state, and their implications for inclusion of vulnerable

groups and their social citizenship.

1 Aasen, is professor of Law, University of Bergen (UoB); Eidsvaag is associate professor of Law, UoB; Fredriksen is PhD fellow at the Faculty of Law, UoB; Gloppen is professor of Comparative Politics, UoB and research director, Chr Michelsen Institute; Magnussen is associate professor, Bergen Universty College (BUC); Mjåland is a PhD candidate at the Uni Rokkan Centre (URC); Nilssen, is senior researcher, (URC) and professor, BUC; Lundeberg is senior researcher, URC;. 2 We are applying the term “juridification” in accordance with the way the term is used by Blichner and Molander in Blichner, L.C. and Molander, A. (2008): Mapping Juridification European Law Journal Vol. 14 Issue. Our understanding of the concept “juridification” thus also comprises processes of “judicialisation” meaning a shift in authorities to judicial bodies. 3 See i.a. Blichner, L.C. and Molander, A. (2008): Mapping Juridification European Law Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1. Lundeberg, I. R. (2008):De urettmessige mindreverdige. Domstolens maktkritiske funksjon i saker om spesialundervisning. Dissertation for the Dr. polit degree. University of Bergen, Magnussen, A-M. (2007): Er politikken rettsliggjort? En diskusjon av makt- og demokratiutredningens påstand om at det skjer en rettsliggjøring av politikken i Lov og rett. Vol 45,3 s. 154-170. 4 NOU 2003:19 Makt og demokrati. 5 Kinander, M (2005) Makt og rett, (red.), Oslo, Universitetsforlaget.

2

In times of globalization and flux, it is essential to situate analyses of changes taking place in

Norwegian welfare and labour policies within a European and global context. For example,

within the Norwegian health sector significant changes have taken place during the last fifteen

to twenty years with exposure to more comprehensive legal regulation. This includes national

and international regulation of health services, organ transplantation, contagious diseases,

"bio-banks", artificial reproduction, prenatal diagnosis, ethical requirements on medical

research etc.6 From the beginning of the 1970's and during the 1980's there has also been a

vast expansion of patient rights. This new legal regulations comprise both health service

institutions, health care workers and the patients.

Important insights can be gleaned from comparing different models of regulation and the

normative debates born from them: How does legalisation affect relationships between the

political and the legal domains and what is the legitimate demarcation between them? How do

juridification processes of various kinds affect the domain of professional judgment and

discretion – and what are the consequences in terms of the social citizenship of affected

groups? How do, and should, human rights and EU instruments and bodies influence and limit

domestic welfare policies - and what are the effects of domestic and international legal

regulations on the social integration of vulnerable groups? How are cultural and religious

differences accounted for in various juridification processes, and how does existing legal

regulations impact on processes of participation and social integration? These are cross-

cutting themes of great relevance for the understanding of the nature, impact and

consequences of juridification in various social fields.

Furthermore, we suggest how the framework can be put to use in concrete empirical analyses.

These empirical case studies include several social fields such as integration/re-integration of

non-western immigrants, persons in a vulnerable position in the labour market and young

prisoners.7 These fields are chosen because they all include vulnerable groups in society with

unstable relation to the labour market, and in addition, the fields have been subject to

comprehensive legal regulations with implication for social citizenship.

6 Sand, I-J. (2005) ”Hva er rettens rolle i dag? Forholdet mellom rett, politikk og makt, belyst ved nyere teori og eksempler fra globaliseringsdiskusjonen og Makt- og demokratiutredningen” i Andenæs, K., Hellum, A., Sand, I-J.: Rettsliggjøring, kvinner, makt og politikk. Stensilserien nr. 101. Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi. Universitetet i Oslo. 7 The framework and case studies are developed as part of an ongoing research project on ”Juridification and Social Citizenship” funded by the Norwegian Research Council and coordinated by the Faculty of Law, University of Bergen

3

2. Changes in the Norwegian welfare regulations

The various fields of welfare law embrace a wide range of legal constructions concerning

political and institutional obligations, professional obligations and individual rights. The

choice of legal construction has significant impact on legal status and rights of clients, e.g.

with regard to the scope of professional or municipal discretion and with regard to content of

individual claims and rights. Historically, the legal regulation of health services, educational

services and social services have been characterized by broad object clauses and legal

standards determining societal objectives and the general principles of the regulation, e.g.

with regard to access to health care and social services. However, since the 1990s the

regulation has become gradually more individualistic and right-oriented, clearly inspired by

human rights ideas and principles. At the same time, public administration has become more

professionalized, leaving more room for professional decision making and discretion. This

aspect of the regulation have both positive and negative implications, ranging from increased

access to services delivered by professionals (health care, social services) to increased

professional and/or paternalistic control over vulnerable groups who are already under strong

pressure and who in some situations would benefit from formal and concise rather than vague

and discretionary rights8.

In the following we will give a brief account of the development of the legal fields included in

our project, in Norway since the 1990s. The common feature across these fields is the

vulnerability of the particular groups with regard to their social citizenship.We will briefly

introduce the Norwegian legal and social policies in the labour- and the health care sectors,

and the links between these. Next, the legal and social policies concerning young prisoners

will be generally outlined, and finally, some of the challenges that non-western immigrants

meet with regard to integration and re-integration into the labour market, e.g. after

imprisonment, and with regard to the way cultural and religious differences are accounted for

in Norwegian regulations and policies.

One of the main objectives of Norwegian and European social policy during the last 10 to 15

years has been to achieve a stronger link between employment policy and social policy and to

8 It is important to keep in mind that although juridification processes involve expanded and more detailed legal regulation, etc., they may also involve more flexible and open or discretionary forms of regulation.

4

change people from passive clients to active participants in the labour market.9 Strengthening

the work approach in social policy has been closely linked to ideas of social inclusion. i.e. to

integrating different groups such as immigrants, prisoners, disabled people into society

through work. This is also emphasised in the Norwegian NAV reform and the Government’s

fight against poverty, whose basic goals include increasing work orientation. This

development implies a stronger link between benefit rights and individualised services that

are oriented towards work and work-related activities. One important legal change in this

respect is the introduction of a new Employment Clarification Benefit (ECB).10 ECB involves

combining three traditional national insurance benefits – medical rehabilitation benefit,

vocational rehabilitation benefit and temporary disability benefit – in one common benefit.

The main objective of ECB is to to secure income while they receive treatment or participate

in work oriented programs and thereby enable more people to take part in the labour market

or work-related activities.11

Another important legal change in Norwegian welfare law is the comprehensive legal

regulation of the health care sector that has taken place during the last fifteen to twenty years.

The development has come about partly through case law,12 but mainly through legislation.

The growing patient rights perspective, inspired by the increasing influence of human rights,

culminated in the introduction of The Patients` Rights Act in 1999.13 When the Patient Rights

Act was adopted, it covered a broad package of rights which main objectives was to give the

population in Norway “equal access to high quality health care by granting patients rights in

their relations with the health service”.14 It aimed at promoting health and welfare politics

based on respect for human dignity, fair distribution of rights and duties and equal access to

health care services.15 An important question in a multicultural society is to which extent the

needs of immigrants are taken into account in the distribution and design of health care

9 See Nilssen, E (2009): ‘Combating Social Exclusion in the EU’ in Ervik, R, N. Kildal & E. Nilssen (ed.) The Role of International Organizations in Social Policy Cheltenham (UK)/Northampton USA): Edward Elgar Publishing 2009. Ervik, R, Kildal N & Nilssen, E. (2009). ’Sosialpolitiske ideer i Norge og EU. Samsvar og påvirkning?’ Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning Vol. 12 Nr. 2. 10 Law on Social Security, Chapter 11, in force from March 1, 2010. 11 Ot.prp.nr.4 (2008-2009) Om lov om endringer i folketrygdsloven og i enkelte andre lover (arbeidsavklaringspenger, arbeidsevnevurderinger og aktivitetsplaner). Kjellevold, A (1995) Sosialhjelp på vilkår. Oslo: Juridisk forlag, 12 E.g. the Supreme Court Judgement in Rt 1977 p. 1035, concerning the right of patients to access information about themselves in the patient journal). 13 Act 2 July 1999 No. 63. 14 Section 1-1. 15 St. meld. nr. 25 (1996-97) Åpenhet og helhet; Ot.prp.nr12 (1999): Ot.prp. nr. 12(1998-99) Lov om pasientrettigheter (pasientrettighetsloven). Sosial- og helsedepartementet

5

services. A related initiative, which was established in May 2006, is ‘Faster Back to Work’

(FBW). FBW is closely linked to the objective of work orientation, but it is directed more

towards the role of the health services in relation to people on sick leave. It comprises offers

of continuous observation, clarification and work-oriented rehabilitation, as well as possible

treatment at specialist level in the healthcare system.

In the area of criminal law and treatment of criminals, there has been a profound change in the

Norwegian correctional policies the last decade. Emphasis is to a larger extent on

rehabilitation, treatment and re-entry to work and society.16 It is recognized that prisoners

have the same rights to health care and welfare services as other citizens, in line with the

human rights perspective dominant in Norwegian law and policies. The legal status of

prisoners has been further affected by extensive and recently implemented health, welfare and

labour market reforms. One of the main aims of the reforms was to limit the professionals’

decision-making power, to safeguard clients’ procedural rights and to make arrangements to

ensure that the services are designed around the special needs of the individual. The

‘reintegration guaranty’ (no. “tilbakeføringsgaranti”), states the Correctional services´

obligation to cooperate with different health- and welfare services located both inside and

outside prisons. The purpose is to improve the convicted person’s competence and ability to

participate and be an active member of society after leaving the prison.17 It is of great

importance to investigate empirically in what ways these new measures, regulations and

policies have strengthened and/or weakened prisoners rights, and how these changes have

affected the conditions for the social citizenship of convicted persons upon release from

prison.

The regulation of the labour market has since the 1990’s been characterized by liberalisation,

e.g. the suspension of the Norwegian ban on temporary agencies in 2000. In labour law we

have seen an expansion of individual employee rights, but also a limiting of trade union and

collective agreement autonomy. Labour law in Norway has traditionally been characterized

by a comparatively high coverage of collective agreements setting standards for wages and

working conditions, agreements being interpreted and enforced by the social partners. The

16 This is especially evident in the new Execution of Sentences Act from 2002 (straffegjennomføringsloven), and a White paper regarding the Correctional services from 2008. (St. meld. 37. (2007-2008): Straff som virker – mindre kriminalitet – tryggere samfunn (kriminalomsorgsmeldingen), Justis- og politidepartementet). 17 St. meld. 37. (2007-2008): Straff som virker – mindre kriminalitet – tryggere samfunn (kriminalomsorgsmeldingen), Justis- og politidepartementet.

6

development of new, individual rights, including individual rights of equal treatment,

represents a challenge to the autonomy of the social partners. Another important challenge is

the new European Court of Justice (ECJ) with case law re-interpreting the boundaries between

collective agreement autonomy and free movement of services, in favour of the latter.18

The 2008 temporary agency work directive19 (TAWD) requires the states to review

restrictions on the use of agency work, including restrictions established in collective

agreements. At the same time it establishes an individual right of equal treatment, (including

remuneration), for agency workers, compared to similar employees at the hirer’s workplace.

The proposed Norwegian implementation legislation relies on individual enforcement

mechanisms. Concerns have been raised that this, considering the agency workers’ vulnerable

position in the labour market (often temporarily employed and thus in practice lacking

employment protection), may render the enforcement inefficient. Further, if undertakings may

replace permanent and directly employed staff with temporary agency workers, this will

weaken the efficiency of the employment protection legislation. The case study on temporary

agency work will seek to investigate the effect of recent legal development in the sector of

agency work on the conditions of social citizenship.

The Norwegian society has in a relatively short time developed into a multicultural and

pluralistic society. These developments have had an increasing impact on Norwegian

legislation as well. The latest amendments in the Marriage Act, the Children Act and the

Penal Code in order to prevent the practice of female circumcision and forced marriages20 are

examples of legislative measures that aim to have a generally deterrent effect and combat

practices and traditions that are practiced among certain minority groups. These regulations

are seen as necessary in order for Norway to comply with international human rights

obligations, and are also perceived as effective means to further integrate and include

minority groups into the Norwegian society. This raises the question of to what extent

religious and cultural diversity is, and should be, allowed in Norway, and how the regulations

should respond to the increasing cultural and religious diversity.

18 See, for instance, the Laval-judgment, ECJ C-341/05, and Commission vs. Germany, C-271/08 (occupational pensions). 19 Directive 104/08/EC on temporary agency work. 20 Cf. Articles 1, 16.3, 18a, 23 of the Norwegian Marriage Act, Article 30a of the Children Act and Articles 220 and 222 of the Penal Code. See also Henriette Sinding Aasen, Menneskerettslige aspekter knyttet til kjønnslemlestelse og helseundersøkelser, (Oslo: Institutt for offentlig rettsskriftserie, nr. 5/2008), p. 9.

7

In the further discussions related to social citizenship, our empirical focus will concentrate on

people outside the labour market due to impairment, sickness or injury; convicted persons;

muslim immigrants and temporary agency workers. How does the legal development

(nationally and internationally) affect the construction of rights and social citizenship for

these groups? Hence, the concept of social citizenship needs to be clarified in more detail.

3. Social citizenship: Marshall as the starting point

Social citizenship is a key concept in this project. Departing from a Marshallian starting point

we understand social citizenship as closely attached to ideas of social rights. The main idea

behind these kinds of rights is that citizens have to be assured a basic material subsistence in

order to be able to function, work and participate in society, and to follow their own life-

projects.21 In order to function as free, equal and autonomous members of the society within

political, economic and social structures citizens need to have rights to fundamental resources

that make them capable of taking well informed and conscious choices22. This is particularly

important to understand with regard to vulnerable groups.

According to Marshall23 the possibility of freedom has to be positively secured if all citizens

should have a fair chance to exercise it. This cannot be fulfilled solely by distributing

resources through the institutions of civil society or the market. As distinct from traditional

charity and discretional policies on poverty, social rights are regarded as individual rights

anchored in the status of citizenship. This means that rights are founded on a general status of

belonging, i.e. membership in a political community. Social citizenship is primarily related to

the legal and institutional construction of the welfare state, but has to be perceived in relation

to other catalogs of rights such as political and civil rights24. For example, rights of political

participation, freedom of expression, due process of law and protection of individual

autonomy are important conditions for the possibility of individuals to participate in society as

free and equal citizens. For Marshall social citizenship was primarily vindicated as a premise

for the execution of individual (civil) and collective (political) self-determination. Many

21 Nilssen, E (1997): ”Funksjonshemmede og det aktive medborgerskapet: ressurser, fordelingsarena og kollektiv deltakelse”. Sefos-Notat 141 1997 22 Rothstein, B. (1994): Vad bör staten göra? Om välfärdsstatens moraliska och politiska logikk. Stockholm: SNS Förlag. 23 Marshall, T.H (2001): “Citizenship and Social Class.” in C. Pierson & F. Castles (eds). The Welfare State Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press 24 Magnussen, A-M and Nilssen, E. (2011) “Welfare Law and the Construction of Social Citizenship” paper prepared for the conference “Challenging citizenship” Coimbra June 2011.

8

individuals (and groups) in society will be in danger of undermining such possibilities due to

different kinds of social risks (e.g. impaired employment protection, unemployment, disability

and sickness). Social rights, thus, generally refers to “..the provisions of benefits and services

designed to meet social needs and enhance capabilities”25.

Participation in the labour market is an important indicator of social citizenship, as vulnerable

groups are often systematically excluded from work opportunities. Persons participating in the

labour market, but lacking employment protection or even status as employees at their

workplace, also experience limitations in their possibility to exercise social citizenship, such

as. freedom of expression and association. Social citizenship cannot, however, be limited to

integration in the labour market. It also includes participation in other social fields (e.g. in

local communities or different kinds of political participation).

Marshall’s theoretical/normative notion that social citizenship will enhance individual and

collective autonomy, participation and social inclusion cannot be taken for granted. Several

scholars have claimed that social rights provide individuals advantages as clients rather than

citizens and that they are strengthening the administrative state rather than individual

autonomy and participation26. The effects of social rights are primarily an empirical question.

We will, however, maintain the Marshallian conception of social citizenship as constituted by

the construction of social rights. Juridification concerns the institutional construction of social

citizenship by defining collective obligations and individual rights and duties. Constructing

social citizenship involves a relationship, and a possible tension, between the values of the

welfare state, the Rechtstaat and the democratic state and social rights cannot be discussed in

isolation from other rights such as civil and political rights. Analyses of juridification

processes have to take into account the relationship between the development of welfare law

in specific legal areas and the construction of social citizenship. The strength of social

citizenship is certainly affected by the existence of legal rights, but there is not a one-to-one

relationship between strong rights and social inclusion and participation. Hence, our

Marshallian point of departure is primarily conceptual, i.e. citizenship is understood as

constructed by the preparation and institutionalisation of legal rights (and duties). The

relationship between social citizenship on the one hand and political and social action on the

25 Taylor-Gooby, P (2009): Reframing social citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p 5 26 Magnussen, A-M and Nilssen, E. (2011) “Welfare Law and the Construction of Social Citizenship” paper prepared for the conference “Challenging citizenship” Coimbra June 2011.

9

other is a theoretical one and has to be investigated empirically. From a juridification

perspective, our focus is primarily on how different legal arrangements affect the construction

of social citizenship and how social citizenship influence on individual action (inclusion,

participation). It is particularly important to conceptualise injustices such as oppression and

domination as issues relating to the power to make decisions.

4. The analytical approach to processes of juridification

4.1 Overview

The analytical framework proposed here aims to provide the basis for more systematic

empirical knowledge of the nature of the legal changes in different sectors of the welfare

state, and how the new forms of juridification impact on the people affected and in particular

how it change the terms of social citizenship.

Our main purpose is to explore the nature of juridification processes in relation to the

identified vulnerable groups in various areas of the welfare state. In examining how different

types of juridification processes affect the mechanisms leading to the inclusion or exclusion of

particular groups, we distinguish four analytical dimensions that in various degree will be

brought to bear on each empirical field of study. These analytical dimensions are illustrated in

the figure below:

10

o The first cross cutting analytical dimension relates to what may be termed democratic

dimension of social citizenship, and focuses on the combined use of individual rights

and duties to achieve socio-political objectives. Special emphasis is on the

participatory dimension of social citizenship (to what extent are those affected actively

influencing the terms of their social inclusion?) as well as the nature of the regulations

(are the changes driven by political or legal processes).

o The second dimension focuses on to what extent, and how, international regulations

and bodies influence the changes that we see in the different sectors at the national

level.

o The third dimension investigates the way in which national regulations take into

account the increasing cultural diversity of Norwegian society, and, if so, how the

regulations seek to accommodate religious and social diversity in different sectors.

o The forth dimension focuses on how juridification processes – and in particular de-

regulation – combines with stronger adherence to professional expertise and

discretion.

Juridification and social citizenship

Reintroduction of young prisoners

Welfare & social integration through work

Temporary agency workers

Integration of Muslim

citizens

Juridification & democracy

Juridification & international law

Juridification & professionalism

Juridification & cultural diversity

11

Cross-sector comparison is facilitated by these cross-cutting dimensions outlined above, but

also requires conscious and systematic efforts at various stages of the empirical analysis.

In the following we will outline the four analytical dimensions in some more detail before

suggesting how they can be brought to bear on the different policy fields under study.

4.2 Juridification and democracy

The debate on the juridification of politics reflects a centuries-old discussion about the

appropriate relationship between law and politics, and the legitimacy of judicial versus

political power.27 Few would deny that law is essential to democratic governance and that it

forms part of the social institutions governing various aspects of social justice.28 Legislation

and legal decisions are central tools for the implementation of national political decisions, and

they underpin the political system itself and the distribution of state power, most explicitly in

constitutional democracies like Norway.29 But, while legislation and legal decisions

indisputably form part of our democratic traditions based on the rule of law, questions are

being raised about whether the extent and form of current juridification processes are

weakening democratic politics and social citizenship in the welfare state.

The Norwegian debate echoes international concerns for juridification and the proper use of

legal instruments and bodies in addressing social challenges. In the United States, the power

of judges has long been a contentious issue.30 What is perceived as the largely court-driven

development of the European Union has made this a central debate in Europe as well.31 There

are also debates on what is seen as the Americanisation of European law,32 for example in

27 Zamboni, M. (2008). Law and politics: a dilemma for contemporary legal theory. Berlin; Heidelberg, Springer; Campbell, T. and A. Stone (2003). Law and democracy. Aldershot, Hants, England ; Burlington, VT, Ashgate/Dartmouth; See also Gloppen, S; B.Wilson, R.Gargarella et al (2010) Courts and Power in Latin America and Africa. Palgrave Macmillan. 28 Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, Belknap, Harvard University Press, p. 54-55. 29 Smith, E. (2009). Konstitusjonelt demokrati, Fagbokforlaget, p. 27-63. 30 Hirschl, R (2004) Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Harvard Univ Press. Tushnet, M. (2000). Taking the constitution away from the courts. Princeton, Princeton Univ Press.

31 See for example Guarneri, C and Pederzoli, P. (2002) From Democracy to Juristocracy? The Power of Judges: A Comparative Study of Courts and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press; Stone Sweet, A, (2000) Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Hirschl, R (2004) Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. For an important early contribution, see Teubner, G. (1987) Juridification of Social Spheres: A Comparative Analysis in the Areas of Labor, Corporate, Antitrust & Social Welfare Law (European University Institute, Series A, Vol. 6).

32 Kagan, R. A. (2008). ‘The Non-Americanisation of European Law.’ European Political Science 7: 21-31; Kagan, R. A. (2001). Adversarial legalism : the American way of law. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univ. Press.

12

countries like the Netherlands, where labour and welfare politics have traditionally (and even

more so than in Norway) been characterised by corporatism and consensual decision-making,

but where economic liberalisation has been coupled with a shift towards formal and legal

conflict resolution.33 Beyond Europe, mobilisation around social economic and cultural rights

has led courts in many parts of the world to develop new forms of social rights jurisprudence,

including in Latin America, Canada, the Middle East, Northern Africa, South Africa and

India.34 A central discussion is the extent to which these juridification processes provide new

political spaces and mechanisms for societal accountability that strengthen the voices of poor

and vulnerable groups, or whether they reinforce existing (and create new) patterns of social

and economic exclusion.35

The costs and gains of juridification in terms of democracy have been central to debates on

the juridification of welfare and labour relations in Norway and internationally. The gains of

juridification are often argued in terms of the rule of law, due process and protection of

‘negative’ civil liberties, while democratic losses are weighed in terms of participation in

political and other arenas and ‘positive’ political and social rights.

In a democracy social citizenship is about the integrity, agency and influence of the individual

citizen 36. The ideal of democracy is realized to the extent that the citizens themselves are

capable of executing power over their own and the society's future37 and developed countries

depend on active and capable citizens. The construction of social citizenship also implies that

the political system takes responsibility for solving problems that arise in society. Legal

33 Waarden, F. v. and Y. Hildebrand (2009). ‘From corporatism to lawyocracy? On liberalization and juridification.’ Regulation & Governance 3 (3): 259-286. 34 Langford, M (2009). Social Rights Jurisprudence. Emerging Trends in International and Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press; Human Rights and Rule of Law Series No. 2, Gauri, V and D. M. Brinks (ed.) (2008) Courting Social Justice: Judicial Enforcement of Social and Economic Rights in the Developing World Cambridge University Press; Fredman, S., Human Rights Transformed. Positive Rights and Positive Duties, Oxford University Press, 2008 Gargarella, R T. Roux and P. Domingo (eds.) (2006), Courts and Social Transformation in New Democracies: An Institutional Voice for the Poor? Ashgate. 35Fredman, S., Human Rights Transformed. Positive Rights and Positive Duties, Oxford University Press, 2008. Enrique, P. and C Smulovitz, eds. (2006). Enforcing the Rule of Law: Social Accountability in the New Latin American Democracies, University of Pittsburgh Press; Sieder R, L.Schjolden and A. Angell . (ed.) (2005) The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America, Palgrave Macmillan; Rosenberg, G. N. (1991) The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?; Gloppen, S. and R. Sieder (2007) ‘Courts and the Marginalized: Comparative Perspectives’ International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 183-186; Galatner, M. (1974) ‘Why Haves Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Social Change.’ Law and Society Review. 36 Petersson, O. (2003): Den sista maktutredningen? Nytt norsk tidsskrift.nr 4. 37 Olsen, J. P. (1990): Demokrati på Svenska. Stockholm: Carlson bokförlag.. SOU 1990: 44 Demokrati och makt i Sverige . Maktutredningens hovedrapport. Stockholm.

13

instruments and bodies are now in use within areas not juridified before, such as education

and health38. This development is followed by an extensive creation of new social rights

within these areas. One important question is how and whether the use of legal instruments

and bodies in addressing social challenges equips individuals with the necessary recourses to

act politically and thus strengthen the autonomy of the citizens 39.

Too often this is discussed as an either-or question. Juridification is driven by different

domestic and international concerns and takes many forms. Democracy also has different

aspects. Juridification (for example through the protection of welfare rights) may enable

democratic participation by strengthening the material conditions of vulnerable groups who

would otherwise lack the ability to participate effectively. Legal and quasi-legal institutions

may serve as arenas for democratic deliberation. Whether juridification processes are at odds

with democracy – and how – thus depends on conceptions of democracy as well as on which

aspects of juridification are in focus: increased legal regulation; the growing emphasis on

individual rights; changes in mentality - a way of thinking and acting in new areas of society;

juridification in the form of interests more often being framed as legal claims. It also depends

on how the processes play out in specific contexts, in particular how the new opportunities for

participation and influence that are opened through juridification processes are used by

different actors.

Traditionally, Norwegians have used corporative channels, the political system or the media

rather than the courts when they feel treated wrongly: are we seeing more legal activism

around welfare and labour rights? Are Norwegian judges actively using their power to limit

political decisions and professional discretion (for example with regard to compensation for

errors and malpractice)? Are the courts being used as a political arena, for agenda setting

purposes? Do the new possibilities for class action lead to more court cases? Or is giving new

rights to vulnerable groups such as prisoners, mainly symbol politics? A disaggregated,

empirically-grounded analysis – informed by comparative and theoretical analysis - is

necessary in order to understand how particular processes of juridification can both strengthen

and weaken democratic political decision-making and social citizenship, depending on the

38 Magnussen, A.M. and Banasiak, A. (2010): Juridification - disrupting the balance between law and politics? Article under review 39 Magnussen, A-M and Nilssen, E. (2011) “Welfare Law and the Construction of Social Citizenship” paper prepared for the conference “Challenging citizenship” Coimbra June 2011.

14

specific forms of juridification that are operating. One of the greatest concerns in terms of

democracy is related to the growing significance of international law, and EU law in

particular, in relation to the domestic political process. This restrains the scope of democratic

politics at the national level, and it is feared that it will also lead to a centralization of the

political process that marginalizes the local self-governance that for many lies at the heart of

the Norwegian democratic model. To what extent do we see such shifts between the national

and municipal levels of government in the areas of study?

The measure FBW and the right to necessary health care, the procedural rights and the

increased opportunity to decide on questions concerning medical examination and treatment

granted in The Patient Right’s Act are chosen to analyze how social citizenship is shaped

within this context of the Norwegian welfare regulations. The idea is that reallocation of

power, for example through rights and rules, may influence both the political decision-making

on the societal level and the individuals’ possibilities for and motivation to participate in both

individual and collective action. For example; is there a tension between increasing patient

choice and more collective forms of patient and citizen involvement? Most likely patients of

tomorrow will express greater demands for involvement in health care decision-making. They

will want to take part in decisions concerning their treatments and the planning of their care

and will also have higher expectations for the responsiveness of the system. Yet it is also

likely that there will be significant differences in the exercise of these rights depending on

socioeconomic status, education level and diagnosis. Through an analysis of the case of FBW

we will ask questions about the distributive effect of this measure; will this measure

strengthen the tendency that patients with capacity and involvement in relation to their own

individual rights strengthen their position in the expense of patients with less self confidence,

scarce resources, weaker social networks etc. The increasing demands for responsiveness

represent an important challenge for all Nordic countries as well as for other European

countries. On the other hand this development may create new opportunities for practicing an

active citizenship when health care services are developed.

Democratic processes also include workplace democracy. Temporary agency workers’ lack of

employee status in relation to the body executing the most central functions of the employer’s

discretion (the hirer) may influence their possibilities of participation in these processes (e.g.

regarding the working environment and the working conditions.)

15

4.3 Juridification and international law

The project focuses on how social citizenship is formed within the context of the Norwegian

welfare state. Since the basic welfare policies and regulations are formulated at the national

level, national law will be the starting point of our analysis. However, international

organisations like the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), the Council of Europe,

the International Labour Organization, etc., are playing an increasingly important role as law-

makers with significant influence on the content of national regulations and policies in the

field of social law. The regulations of the European Council, including the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR, 1950) and the less well-

known, but still significant, European Social Charter (ESC, revised 1996), are examples of

regional instruments of great importance. Although the ESC is still struggling to gain

momentum, it is the most significant treaty at the European level for the protection of social

rights. It guarantees a wide range of rights relating to housing, health, education, employment,

social protection, non-discrimination, etc., and establishes a supervisory mechanism based on

collective complaints and state reports.

Within the European Union (EU), the social regulation element - as part of the regulation of

economic integration - is expanding. Although Norway is not an EU member, most EU

regulations have direct impact on the Norwegian legal system due to the Agreement on the

European Economic Area (the EEA Agreement). Thus, an important question is to what

extent national welfare and social policy is determined at the EU level, for example through

the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the EU Charter, 2000),40 EU

directives and decisions made by the EU Parliament and the European Court of Justice (ECJ)

The European Court of Justice appears to have a more direct influence on national welfare

law, for instance through interpretations of the principle of free movement of persons.41

Therefore, the question of how EU-regulations and institutions will influence on national

democracies and the terms of social citizenship, is an urgent one.42

40 The Charter became legally binding when the EU Lisbon Reform Treaty entered into force in 2009. 41 Hatland, A & Nilssen E (2009): ‘Policy making and application of law: free movement of persons and the European Court of Justice’ in Ervik, R, Kildal, N. & Nilssen, E (eds.). The Role of International Organizations in Social Policy. Cheltenham UK/Northampton (USA): Edward Elgar. 42 Hervey, T and Kenner, J (2003). Economic and Social Rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. A Legal Perspective, Hart Publishing. Evju, Stein, (2011) Implementing EU Law on Services: National Diversity and the Human Rights Dilemma, University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies, Research Paper Series No. 2011-01.

16

It is also important to examine the relationship between the EU´s overriding and transnational

goal of creating a well-functioning internal market (free movement of goods and services) and

the European nation states’ authority to establish their own welfare policy, e.g. to protect

workers and compensate for unwanted effects of the free market.43 A current example of the

tension between the multilevel regulations, is how Norwegian authorities endeavour to fulfil

the obligations under ILO-convention No. 94 (requiring minimum wages) under public

procurement, while ESA (The EFTA Surveillance Authority) is of the opinion that this

violates the obligations under the EEA-agreement.44 This can be viewed as a constant tension

in the European integration process, and it is of great relevance to the present study, which

aims to identify challenges to the social integration of vulnerable groups in the Norwegian

welfare state.

Also within the EU regulations there are certain tensions and uncertainties, e.g. with regard to

the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 35, on a “high level of human health protection” in

all Union policies and activities, and EU directive 2001/55/EC, Article 13.2, concerning, inter

alia, basic medical assistance (at least emergency care and essential treatment of illness) to

persons enjoying temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons. This

EU directive may also be in conflict with the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article 12, as interpreted by the monitoring Committee in its

General Comment No. 14 (2000).45

Further, international human rights conventions of the UN are key instruments with regard to

the understanding of social rights and social citizenship. As for the protection of social rights,

the ICESCR, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination (ICERD), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), are of

particular interest. These conventions form an important background and provide a relevant

framework for the European regulations and practices, both at the institutional and state

levels. It is essential to analyse the legal consequences and social implications of these

43 See e.g. Evju, Stein, (2011) Implementing EU Law on Services: National Diversity and the Human Rights Dilemma, University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies, Research Paper Series No. 2011-01. 44 See letter of formal notice of July 15th 2009, with reference to the ruling of EJC in the Rüffert-case, C-.346/06). See also Evju, S., (2011) Implementing EU Law on Services: National Diversity and the Human Rights Dilemma, University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies, Research Paper Series No. 2011-01 45 Para. 34.

17

international instruments for national law and practices, including the interplay between

national and international regulations and institutions.

Human rights, including social rights, are increasingly being framed as non-discrimination

standards, not least in an EU-context, see for instance the Charter of Fundamental Rights Title

III. In international law and court practice, there is a strong and growing conscience that the

concept of non-discrimination includes more than mere formal equality, i.e. (not) “treating

similar situations differently”. Non-discrimination also requires that relevant factual

differences in the living conditions of different groups are taken into consideration. This is

recognized trough the concept of “indirect discrimination”, i.e; “treating different situations

similarly”.46 Additionally, the concept of non-discrimination may include making adjustments

to group or individual needs. For instance, when interpreting the prohibition against torture,

the ECHR has established that prisons must make individual accommodations to an inmate’s

disability.47 Rights of different treatment, including rights of accommodation, may serve as a

fundament for social right claims. However, the non-discrimination perspective may also be

limiting, as it does not in itself set a material minimum standard for the social right in

question.48

4.4 Juridification and cultural diversity

During a relatively short period of 20-25 years, Norway has developed from a homogenous,

monolithic and strong welfare state into a heterogeneous, multicultural and multi-religious

welfare state. How has this religious and cultural diversity influenced Norwegian legislation,

court practice and civil administration in relation to welfare and labour issues? And to which

extent does the current international and national regulations contribute – positively or

negatively - to active social citizenship on the part of ethnic and religious minorities in

Norwegian society? As increased immigration has put fundamental social values in focus,

discourses about the future of the welfare state, religion and constitutional values (democracy,

human rights and the rule of law) have increased in importance in the Norwegian debate.49

46 See e.g. ECHR 34369/97 Thlimmenos vs. Greece, 6 April 2000, where the court established that the state must take into consideration relevant factual differences due to religion. 47 ECHR 33394/96 Adele Ursula Price vs. UK, 10 July 2001. 48 Craig, R., (2007) Systemic Discrimination in Employment and the Promotion of Ethnic Equality p. 40. Tobler, C, European Network of legal experts in the non-discrimination field, (2008) Limits and potensial of the concept of indirect discrimination, Report for the use of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, p. 39-40. 49 Kjell Å Modéer, Hanne Petersen, Believing in Norway. Beliefs in Norway: A ‘Humanitarian Great Power’ under Globalization, p. 14.

18

Therefore, the issue of social citizenship of ethnic and religious minorities raises many

burning and controversial questions both in Norway and internationally.50

International human rights standards (e.g. right to freedom of thought, conscience and

religion, as well as the right to freedom from non-discrimination and harmful practices) are

essential principles in Norwegian law. According to the Human Rights Act,51 section 3 cf

section 2, these human rights provisions are to be given priority if they conflict with other

Norwegian laws. However, the relationship and balance between various human rights

obligations, and how they are to be implemented at the domestic level, are not always clear.

A challenge for many immigrants seems to be the general principle of ‘equality before the

law’, which leaves little scope for religious and cultural diversity pertaining to welfare

services, the labour market and terms of imprisonment. Experiences from Europe have shown

that, for instance, Muslim citizens may face specific challenges in relation to their religious

and cultural background.52 This could play a role in the abovementioned re-entry programmes

for Muslim prisoners convicted of drug or other crimes, as intoxication is considered to be a

crime against religion. Furthermore, religious and cultural factors may also influence Muslim

citizens’ chances of labour participation and choice of profession. For example, the

Norwegian Public Administration53 is currently investigating the possibility of putting

restrictions on the use of religious and political symbols (such as the hijab) to public officers.

Across the various social fields, the question of how to relate to cultural diversity occurs, both

in relation to the interpretation and implementation of national regulations, and with regard to

the implementation of international regulations, including human rights instruments. One

aspect of this is how Norwegian welfare, labour and health care regulations reflect

international agreements, including human rights and rights of minorities. Thus, one focus of

analysis will be on the compatibility of recent criminal law and legislation in the welfare,

labour and migration fields with the OSCE54 guidelines for Review of Legislation Pertaining

50 The minaret prohibition in Switzerland can serve as an example. 51 Act 21 May 1999 No. 30. 52 See, for instance, Roger Ballard, Allessandro Ferrari, Ralph Grillo, André Hoekema, Marcel Maussen and Prakash Shah, eds. Legal Practice and Cultural Diversity, (Farnham, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009). 53 The Norwegian National Court Administration has previously rejected such a proposal, but the Department of Justice seems to be more positive to lay down a prohibition. 54 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

19

to Religion or Belief of 2004.55 The aim of these guidelines is to serve as an instrument for

reviewing national legislation in light of international human rights standards (right to

freedom of thought, conscience and religion).

Religious and cultural diversity may also influence labour participation, for example though

gender roles that vary from that of the larger society and influence the way spouses arrange

their labour participation and responsibility for care, home and children.56 Furthermore,

Norwegian law grants government agencies a great degree of autonomy in the regulation and

interpretation of religious and cultural diversity, which has led to different approaches at the

governmental level.

4.5 Juridification and professionalism

Juridification also concerns the relationship between citizens and public institutions with

special expertise. One assumption is that more power has been transferred from democratic

institutions to various groups of experts or professionals, such as health professionals, social

service professionals (NAV offices), child protection workers etc, and also to the legal

professions. Welfare legislation has often the characteristics of general and broad object

clauses that determine which societal objectives are to be protected in different areas of

society.57 This opens for politicization of the application of the law in the public

administration as the government can give continuous instructions or political signals58. On

the other hand, by using such forms of legislation politicians have limited their legislative

activities to the determination of broad objectives and procedural decisions. Simultaneously,

they have often abdicated with regard to how these objectives are to be interpreted and

implemented in practice. If individual rights are formulated in a general and abstract manner it

leaves room for substantial professional discretion and may thus cause extensive variations in

the practice of rights. Juridification in this context implies that the rights of citizens are

increasingly administered and determined by professionals.

55 http://www.osce.org/publications/odihr/2004/09/12361_142_en.pdf, p.5. 56 See Fafo report 2009:39 on Family practice and gender equality among immigrant families. 57 Magnussen, A-M and Nilssen, E. (2011) “Welfare Law and the Construction of Social Citizenship” paper prepared for the conference “Challenging citizenship” Coimbra June 2011. 58 Sand, I-J. (2005a): Sand, I-J. (2005a): Hva er rettens rolle i dag? Forholdet mellom rett, politikk og makt, belyst ved nyere teori og eksempler fra globaliseringsdiskusjonen og Makt- og demokratiutredningen i Andenæs, K., Hellum, A., Sand, I-J.: Rettsliggjøring, kvinner, makt og politikk. Stensilserien nr. 101. Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi. Universitetet i Oslo.

20

Another view is that juridification reduces the scope for discretion in a manner that is

detrimental to the ability to base decisions on sound professional judgment. Definitions of

legal rights may both strengthen the citizen’s legal position against the welfare state and

simultaneously limit the administrative/professional space of action59. The implementation of

social rights in many areas of the welfare state is dependent on professional discretion and

cannot be regulated in accordance with the model of strong legal rights, for instance in

medical treatment or in education. Juridification may imply a bureaucratization of welfare

services and in that respect reduce the accuracy of professional practice60. A certain space of

discretion may be a prerequisite for tailor-made services and for client influence in the

provision of welfare services.

Thus, it is necessary to disaggregate and examine the relationship between individual rights,

democratic decisions and professional autonomy – and also to address the normative

questions: what is, and how do we define, the legitimate boundary between professional

knowledge, political decisions and the law? And how is professional authority challenged by

citizens’ rights to participate directly in treatment and in designing welfare services? In

certain social areas new forms of juridification contribute to professional authority by using

legal standards and enabling acts. Due to the complexity and amount of legal regulation, the

professions in the welfare state are gaining increasing power in the relationship between

science, politics and the law.61 This is obvious in court cases where professionals serve as

expert witnesses, but also in the administration of labour law, social law, health law and

criminal law. Thus, the question of normative legitimacy and the democratic implications of

professional decisions in welfare services, and the question of legal administration,

professional discretion and citizens’ right to participation are urgent ones.

Health policy is a complicated area where the professional will have great influence over the

development irrespective of individual rights or not62. The question is whether regulation of

health policy is formulated in a way that opens for politization of the application of the law or

whether it is formulated in a way that reduces the scope for discretion. The Patient Right’s

59 Magnussen, A-M and Nilssen, E. (2011) “Welfare Law and the Construction of Social Citizenship” paper prepared for the conference “Challenging citizenship” Coimbra June 2011. 60 Rothstein, B. (1994): Vad bör staten göra? Om välfärdsstatens moraliska och politiska logikk. Stockholm: SNS Förlag. 61 Lundeberg, I. R.(2009): Sannhetens urett. Retfærd, no. 4, pp. 26 - 54. 62 Christensen 2004:19.

21

Act is characterized by general and broad object clauses. The individual right to necessary

treatment and care, the right to be heard, give consent to and to receive necessary information

on treatment needs to be interpreted and implemented in practice and when they are

formulated in such a general and abstract manner it leaves room for substantial professional

discretion and may cause extensive variations in the practice of these rights. On the other

hand the above mentioned regulations also may reduce the scope for discretion in a way that

challenges the practitioners ability to base decisions on sound professional judgment. Among

the questions we ask are: Does the prioritisation practice at the specialist level of the

healthcare services vary between different institutions? How is “the right to necessary health

care” interpreted” in different specialist health care institutions and fields of medicine? Does

it vary within the same field of medicine? Is the interpretation of “the right to necessary health

care” affected by the measure FBW? Does the measure influence how concepts such as ‘the

right to necessary healthcare’ are interpreted?

As mentioned in section 2 one important legal change in Norwegian welfare law is the

introduction of a new Employment Clarification Benefit (ECB) which combines the right to

financial aid with work-oriented services. The ECB may be seen as a part of a contractarian

mode of regulating the relationship between welfare administration and their clients63.

Enhancing clients influence on policy formulation at the local level (democratization) is one

important idea of contractualist thought64. However, the quasi-contractual65 relationship is

based on asymmetric power relations and can be seen as instruments for controlling client

behaviour in order to create an ‘active citizen’. i.e. a citizen who participates in the labour

market66. The idea of active citizenship differs clearly from the Marshallian understanding of

citizenship based on freedom and participation as a member of a political community (status).

In the field of welfare and work the contractual approach reduces to a large extent social

citizenship to “economic citizenship”. It is important to examine if individualization and a

strong connection between benefits and services at the local level will increase

professional/administrative discretion and paternalism and thus imply a kind of juridification

63 Magnussen, A-M and Nilssen, E. (2011) “Welfare law and the construction of social citizenship”, paper prepared for the conference “Challenging citizenship” Coimbra June 2011. 64 Nilssen, E & Kildal N (2009) ”New Contractualism in Social Policy and the Norwegian Fight against poverty and Social Exclusion”, Ethics and Social Welfare. Vol. 3 Number 3. 65 This is not a question of contracts in a legal sense, but of what has been termed relational contracts, i.e. an organizing principle based on a contractarian way of thinking (Yeatman & Owler 2001) 66 Nilssen, E & Kildal N (2009) ”New Contractualism in Social Policy and the Norwegian Fight against poverty and Social Exclusion”, Ethics and Social Welfare. Vol. 3 Number 3.

22

(or maybe de-juridification) which weakens rather than strengthen citizen’s social rights. For

instance, does the increasing work orientation of welfare policy imply a more direct coupling

between rights and duties (reciprocity) at the local level (the NAV office)? Does the

implementation of ECB result in a weakening of material legal rights and considerations of

equal treatment (e.g. compared with the temporary disability benefit) and a strengthening of

local discretion by linking benefit rights and work-oriented services?

By the introduction of the ‘reintegration guaranty`, the focus on rehabilitation in criminal

justice policy has been strengthened.67 The Execution of Sentences Act from 2002 represents

a shift away from strong and specific rules governing inmates´ rights and duties while in

prison, on the grounds that a more open and flexible regulation enables the correctional

services to individualize treatment and rehabilitation efforts. This may lead to a shift in power

from the judiciary to the discretionary powers of different prison staff.68 The varying

competence of prison staff, their ability to address the offenders needs and ensure diagnostic

evaluation, is likely to be decisive for the determination of the individual inmate’s rights and

obligations and the success rate of work-oriented rehabilitation and treatment in prison. For

instance, various components of the criminal justice and the treatment system, work together

to use the coercive power to reduce drug use and criminal behavior by engaging and retaining

drug-involved offenders in program and treatment services. An important question is how this

discretion is being used, and how it is perceived by inmates. Another important consequence

of the extensive treatment and re-entry focus the last decade is the emergence of a wide range

of different health- and social professions into the correctional services. Prison staff on the

one hand, and different health- and social professions on the other, compete for ‘jurisdiction’

over different tasks, programs and understandings.69 The tendencies towards tailor-made

services, individualized sanctions and rewards, demands for client-influence, and increased

professional involvement may result in extensive variations in the distribution of rights and

duties on behalf of inmates. It is an important empirical task to investigate how the legal

changes and welfare reforms the last decade has changed the scope for professional discretion

and cooperation among the various agencies and personnel within the Norwegian correctional

67St. meld. 37. (2007-2008): Straff som virker – mindre kriminalitet – tryggere samfunn (kriminalomsorgsmeldingen), Justis- og politidepartementet. 68 Giertsen, H. (2001) ”Den nye straffegjennomføringsloven”. I Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi. Årsrapport 2001. s.3-15. 69 Abbott, A. (1988) The system of profession: an essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

23

services, and with what consequences for the power relation of different institutions and

professionals involved and for the different categories of inmates.

5. In conclusion

In this article we have presented a framework for empirical analysis of processes of

juridification and de-juridification as they play out in the Norwegian welfare state, and how

they in turn affects the conditions for inclusion of vulnerable groups and their social

citizenship. The framework centers on four dimensions of analysis; (1) the tension between

juridification processes and democracy; (2) the impact of international law on national and

local laws, regulations and practices; (3) the extent to which the changing legal regulation in

various parts of the welfare state reflect concerns for the increasing multiculturalism of

Norwegian society; (4) and the ways in which (de)juridification processes affect the domain

of professional judgment and discretion. The red thread throughout our project and this article

are the following questions: how do these processes of (de)juridification affect the terms of

social integration, and what are the consequences in terms of the social citizenship of affected

groups? The answers to these questions will be based on both legal and an empirical data,

integrating and combining the results from respectively legal and empirical analyses.

Questions related to nature, consequences and implications of (de)juridification for vulnerable

groups in the welfare state call for integrated multidisciplinary analysis, and the presented

framework seeks to lay the groundwork for empirical analysis that is informed by normative

and legal theory as well as social science. As more studies are added, this can enable a more

complete picture of the changing conditions of social citizenship in Norway.