Automatisering – till nytta eller fördärv?

Lupita Svensson

doi:10.3384/SVT.2019.26.3-4.3094

Authors

Lupita Svensson

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2019.26.3-4.3094

Abstract

Automation to benefit or ruin?
The purpose of this article is to discuss and analyze how digital automation of the provision of social assistance affects the practice of social work, as part of welfare. Based on interviews with supervisors/project managers and social case workers, who work with social assistance in a strategic selection of municipalities, the opportunities and challenges that robotization brings to the function of social assistance are problematized as a selective welfare right. The results show that robotisation can help to increase efficiency and that resources can be re-prioritized, but at the same time there are significant risks to the erosion of the social work practice, both in terms of the practitioners’ work in the provision of social assistance and its function as a selective right in a universal welfare construction. The results also indicate needs for further in-depth studies.

References

Andersson, T. (2016) Uppfostra din robot. [https://akademikern.se/reportage/uppfostra-din-robot. Hämtat 2019-08-25].

Bovens, M. & Zouridis, S. (2002) From street-level to system-level bureaucracies. How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Adminstration Review, 62(2): 174.

Brauneis, R. & Goodman, E.P. (2018). Algorithmic transparency for the smart city. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 20: 103–176.

Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P. (2018) An organization approach to public administration. I: E. Ongaro & S. Van Thiel (red.) The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cordella, A. & Tempini, N. (2015) E-government and organizational change. Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3): 279–286.

Curry, S.R., van Draanen, J. & Freisthler, B. (2017) Perceptions and use of a web-based referral system in child welfare. Differences by caseworker tenure. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 35(2): 152–168.

Dellgran, P. & Höjer, S. (2003) Unbalanced professionalization. On status and stratification in Swedish social work. Social Work in Europe, 10(2): 37–48.

Denk, T., Hedström, K. & Karlsson, F. (2019) Medborgarna och automatiskt beslutsfattande. I: U. Andersson, B. Rönnerstrand, P. Öhberg & A. Bergström (2019) Storm och stiltje. Bokserien 74. Göteborg: SOM-institutet, Göteborgs universitet.

Devlieghere, J., Bradt, L. & Roose, R. (2018) Creating transparency through electronic information systems: Opportunities and pitfalls. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(3): 734–750.

Devlieghere, J. & Roose, R. (2018) Electronic information systems. In search of responsive social work. Journal of Social Work, 18(6): 650–665.

De Witte, J., Declercq, A. & Hermans, K. (2016) Street-level strategies of child welfare social workers in Flanders. The use of electronic client records in practice. The British Journal of Social Work, 46(5): 1249–1265.

Eubanks, V. (2018) Automating inequality. How high-tech tools profile, police and punish the poor. New York: St. Martins Press.

Evans, T. & Harris, J. (2004) Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. The British Journal of Social Work, 34(6): 871–895.

Gillingham, P. (2018a) Decision-making about the adoption of information technology in social welfare agencies. Some key considerations. European Journal of Social Work, 21(4): 521–529.

Gillingham, P. (2018b) From bureaucracy to technocracy in a social welfare agency: A cautionary tale. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 29(2): 108–11.

Graeber, D. (2015) Reglernas utopi. Om teknologi, enfald och byråkratins hemliga fröjder. Stockholm: Bokförlaget Daidalos AB.

Hansen, H.T., Lundberg, K. & Syltevik, L.J. (2018) Digitalization, street-level bureaucracy and welfare users’ experiences. Social Policy and Administration, 52(1): 67–90.

Hassan, S. & De Filippi, P. (2017) The expansion of algorithmic governance. From code is law to law is code. Field Actions Science Report, 17: 88–90.

Kaun, A. & Velkova, J. (2019) Sweden. I: M. Spielkamp (red.) (2019) Automating society: Taking stock of automated ecision-making in the EU. Report. Berlin: Algorithm Watch, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Open Society Foundations.

Kjellbom, P. (2009) Rättssäkerhet och flexibilitet. I kommunala riktlinjer för socialt bistånd. Retfaerd: Nordisk Juridisk Tidskrift, 32(4): 80–103.

Lejon, C. (2019) Trelleborgsmodellen. Vägen framåt för kommunerna. [https://www.pwc.se/sv/branscher/offentlig-sektor/trelleborgsmodellen.html].

Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. 30th Anniversary Expanded Edition. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.

Lødemel, I. (1997) The welfare paradox. Income maintenance and personal social services in Norway and Britain, 1946–1966 Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

Martinell Barfoed, E. (2014) Standardiserad interaktion. En utmaning i socialt arbete. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, 21(1): 4–23.

Martinell Barfoed, E. (2019) Digital clients. An example of people production in social work. Social Inclusion, 7(1): 196–206.

Minas, R., Bäckman, O. & Korpi, T. (2014) Rescaling inequality? Welfare reform and local variation in social assistance payments. I: K. Farnsworth, Z Irving & M. Fenger (red.) Social policy review 26. Analysis and debate in social policy. Bristol: Policy Press.

Oscarsson, O. (2009) Evidensbaserad praktik inom socialtjänsten. Stockholm: Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting.

Peczenik, A. (1995). Vad är rätt? Om demokrati, rättssäkerhet, etik och juridisk argumentation. 1 uppl. Stockholm: Fritzes.

Peterson, J. (2009) Den aktiva arbetsmarknadspolitiken växer fram. I: H. Johansson & I: Hornemann Möller (red.) Aktivering. Arbetsmarknadspolitik och socialt arbete i förändring. Malmö: Liber.

Ranerup, A. & Henriksen, H.Z. (2019) Value positions viewed through the lens of automated decision- making. The case of social services. Government Information Quarterly [in press] [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.004].

Scaramuzzino, G. (2019) Socialarbetare om automatisering i socialt arbete. En webbenkätundersökning. Research Reports in Social Work 3. Lund: Socialhögskolan, Lunds universitet.

Socialstyrelsen (2019) E-hälsa och välfärdsteknik i kommunerna 2019. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen.

SOU 1977:40 Socialtjänst och socialförsäkringstillägg. Lagar och motiv. Socialutredningens slutbetänkande. Stockholm: Riksdagen.

Stranz, H. (2019) Med oddsen på sin sida. Bedömningar av ekonomiskt bistånd. I: T. Hjort (red). Det yttersta skyddsnätet. Om arbete med socialbidrag. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Sunesson, S. (1990) Att spränga fattigdomsskalet. I: Research Reports in Social Work, 2. Lund: Socialhögskolan, Lunds universitet. Scenförändring FORSA-symposiet Helsingborg/Gilleleje Research Reports in Social Work, 2. Lund: Socialhögskolan, Lunds universitet.

Svensson, L. (2019) ”Tekniken är den enkla biten”. Om att implementera digital automatisering i handläggningen av försörjningsstöd. Research Reports in Social Work 2019:12. Lund: Socialhögskolan, Lunds universitet.

Svensson, K., Johnsson, E. & Laanemets, L. (2008) Handlingsutrymme, utmaningar i socialt arbete. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.

Svensson, L. & Larsson, S. (2017) Digitalisering och socialt arbete. En kunskapsöversikt. LUii report. Lunds universitet.

Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting (2019a) Den digitala kollegan. Konferens. [https://skl.se/tjanster/kurserochkonferenser/dokumentation/alldokumentation/dok umentationdendigitalakollegan.26846.html]

Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting (2019b) Delta i utvecklingsprojekt för automatisering inom ekonomiskt bistånd. [https://skl.se/integrationsocialomsorg/ekonomisktbistandforsorjning/automatiseringekonomisktbistand/utvecklingsprojektekonomisktbistand.27057].

Swärd, H. (2013) Det tudelade välfärdssamhället. I: H. Swärd, P.G. Edebalk & E. Wadensjö (red). Vägar till välfärd. Idéer, inspiratörer, kontroverser och perspektiv. Stockholm: Liber.

Tegmark, M. (2017) Life 3.0. Being human in the age of artificial intelligence. New York: Vintage Books.

Thorén, K.H. (2009) Socialt arbete och aktiveringens praktik. I: H. Johansson & I. Hornemann Möller (red.) Aktivering. Arbetsmarknadspolitik och socialt arbete i förändring. Malmö: Liber.

Thyer, B.A. (2006) What is evidence-based practice? I: A. Roberts & K. Yeager (red.) Foundations of evidence-based social work practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Trelleborg (2015) Orka fullfölja. Det är en kvalitetsfråga. Trelleborg: Trelleborg kommun.

Wenger, J.B. & Wilkins, V.M. (2008) At the discretion of rogue agents. How automation improves women’s outcomes in unemployment insurance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2): 313–333.

Wihlborg, E., Larsson, H. & Hedström, K. (2016) The computer says no! A case study on automated decision-making in public authorities. Konferensbidrag 49th HICSS, IEEE.

Wirtz, B. & Müller, M. (2019) An integrated artificial intelligence framework for public management. Public Management Review, 21(7): 1076–1100.

Wirtz, B., Weyerer, J.C. & Geyer, C. (2018) Artificial intelligence and the public sector. Applications and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(7): 596–615.

Automatisering – till nytta eller fördärv?

Authors

DOI:

Abstract

References

This article has been cited by (Crossref):

Citations in Google Scholar

Downloads

Downloads

Published

How to Cite

Issue

Section

License

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Language

Information