The institutions for people with intellectual disabilities in Norway were closed through a major, state-lead reform in the early 1990s (1991–1996). Politically, the reform was seen as one of the most important and progressive social reforms in Norway in the post-war period. It was about a total dismantling of one of the institutional pillars of the early welfare state; institution-based special care, and an admission of the equal rights of people with intellectual disabilities to participate in ordinary society. After the reform, quite a few of former institutional residents continued to live in the institutions’ host municipalities, as they no longer had any connection to their original home municipality. This led to some of the institutions’ facilities being used even after the institutions had been formally closed. The question raised in this chapter is whether this affected the realization of the reform’s progressive aims. Did the institutions cause any path dependency? Are there traces of the institutions’ original operation in these municipalities more than 30 years after they were closed? The chapter is based on an exploratory investigation of the services for people with intellectual disabilities in the municipalities that hosted the 15 largest municipalities in Norway.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Did the Institutions Really Disappear? The Norwegian Deinstitutionalization Reform in Retrospect

  • Johans Tveit Sandvin

摘要

The institutions for people with intellectual disabilities in Norway were closed through a major, state-lead reform in the early 1990s (1991–1996). Politically, the reform was seen as one of the most important and progressive social reforms in Norway in the post-war period. It was about a total dismantling of one of the institutional pillars of the early welfare state; institution-based special care, and an admission of the equal rights of people with intellectual disabilities to participate in ordinary society. After the reform, quite a few of former institutional residents continued to live in the institutions’ host municipalities, as they no longer had any connection to their original home municipality. This led to some of the institutions’ facilities being used even after the institutions had been formally closed. The question raised in this chapter is whether this affected the realization of the reform’s progressive aims. Did the institutions cause any path dependency? Are there traces of the institutions’ original operation in these municipalities more than 30 years after they were closed? The chapter is based on an exploratory investigation of the services for people with intellectual disabilities in the municipalities that hosted the 15 largest municipalities in Norway.