How Say­ing No Can Help Re­build the Wel­fare State

There is a kind of regime of temporariness in the public sector. Decisions are postponed in an endless attempt to view problems from multiple perspectives. The public administration has the best of intentions, says CBS Professor Niels Åkerstrøm Andersen, but complexity has become an argument for avoiding responsibility. In its pursuit of being flexible, agile and solution-oriented, the administration has effectively removed the possibility for citizens to say no in a constructive way to what it proposes.

When the administration replaces decisions with, for example, temporary “pilot initiatives” in order to “keep options open”, it deprives citizens of the opportunity to respond to something concrete, argues Niels Åkerstrøm Andersen.

“Citizens say no because they want something to happen and a decision to be made, so they can receive help here and now. But the basis for disagreement disappears because there is nothing concrete to argue against. As a result, the no becomes an emotional reaction, and professionals are left with no room for action because they perceive the no as pure negativity. This wears down public-sector employees, and ultimately some citizens give up on cooperation altogether,” concludes Niels Åkerstrøm Andersen.

According to Andersen, this is a fundamental problem for the welfare state. A citizen’s no is not an annoyance; it is the welfare state’s immune system. It is through disagreement that the system can identify mistakes, correct its course, establish precedent and evolve.

The Immune Mechanism Disappears

To understand today’s challenges, Niels Åkerstrøm Andersen traces the issue back to the legal foundations of the welfare state. In 1849, the Danish Constitution made power subject to the rule of law. First, this principle was applied to Parliament, and later efforts were made to ensure that the powers of public administration were similarly bound by law. As Andersen explains, public administration has a tendency to prioritise the interests of society as a whole. So how do we protect the individual?

The answer was administrative law, which functions as a kind of conflict economy: it invites citizens into conflict while at the same time regulating that conflict through clear procedures, formal decisions and avenues of appeal.

“This means that conflict becomes a mechanism for learning, because it can be brought before the courts and create precedent. It is an immune mechanism that protects the administration from its own structures. Today, the law is disconnected from the conversation when the administration does not make decisions, leaving citizens with nothing to appeal against. Ultimately, the administration also removes its own opportunity to learn,” says Niels Åkerstrøm Andersen, who describes this development in his book We Hear What You Are Saying.

A No Is Not an Ending – It Is an Opening

For Niels Åkerstrøm Andersen, a no is a form of communication that protects the relationship by insisting on new terms and conditions. And that is something the public sector needs to learn to listen for.

A no is not an ending – it is an opening. A signal that:

“I cannot move forward on the current terms, but I am willing to continue the conversation on different ones,” he says.

The alternative to no is not yes. The alternative is exit: the citizen withdraws from the conversation, gives up hope, or reacts purely out of frustration.

The dynamic is easy to recognise within a family, Niels Åkerstrøm Andersen explains. Teenagers who cannot say no to the family’s annual trip to the summer house may instead begin withdrawing from family life altogether. If, on the other hand, they openly reject the summer-house holiday, the family can renegotiate its expectations and create something new. Perhaps a summer holiday abroad like their classmates, combined with a trip to the summer house during the winter break.

The welfare state works in much the same way, he concludes.

What Can Public Leaders Do?

“I am not here to tell public leaders what they should do,” says Niels Åkerstrøm Andersen, who often structures his MPG teaching around analyses of contemporary developments.

“I simply try to hold up a mirror.”

However, three points stand out clearly in his view:

• Put an End to the Regime of Temporariness
  Conversations without legal authority leave both citizens and employees in a vacuum. Leaders must ensure that there are decisions, clear frameworks and avenues for appeal. Without them, nobody can navigate effectively.
   
• Restore the Rule of Law as a Source of Value Creation
  The law is the learning mechanism that enables the welfare state to evolve. In many places, the role of legal professionals has been diminished. That should change.
   
• Make Conflict Legitimate
  Give employees the opportunity to refer to rules, decisions and formal structures. This protects them from becoming the personal target of citizens’ frustrations—and it makes a citizen’s no productive, because there is then something concrete to discuss.