Germany and Finland as the comparative countries

Germany and Finland were chosen as the two comparative countries for three main reasons. First, as the aim of this study is to investigate the nature and role of SSW in the context of welfare regimes and child welfare systems, two countries that are characterised as functionally differentiated societies and, thus, have norm-based social welfare systems were needed. Hence, the development of SSW in both countries was highly shaped and influenced by legislation. In Germany, SSW was introduced in the 1970s to support a child’s socialisation and adaption to school (Wulfers, 2002, p. 124). While SSW developed well during the next two decades, it stagnated at the end of the 1980s; it was only due to the introduction of the new child and youth welfare act [KJHG] on 3 October 1990 in the old federal states (in the western part

of the country) and in the new federal states (in the eastern part) that SSW gained in importance again as the cooperation between both systems was legally consolidated (Aden-Grossmann, 2016, p. 191). Current regulations concerning SSW are found in the SGB VIII.

In Finland, the roots of SSW go back to 1921 when a new law on compulsory education came into force and led to the need for measures to deal with children who either did not adapt to school rules or did not succeed at school (Pippuri, 2015, p. 12). The first SSW positions were introduced in the 1960s in Helsinki and Kotka (Andersson, Pösö, Väisänen, & Wallin, 2002, p. 81). Due to a lack of legislation, further development was hampered (Ikonen, 2014, p. 7) until SSW was regulated and became statutory in the Finnish Child Welfare Act [CWA] in 1990 (Andersson et al., 2002, p. 82). Current regulations concerning SSW are found in the Pupil and Student Welfare Act (1287/2013), which came into force on 1 August 2014.

Second, several researchers share the idea that social work practice is essentially influenced by and shaped through the welfare regime in which it is embedded (e.g., Meeuwisse & Swärd, 2007, p. 483; referring to Lorenz, 1994; Morales & Sheafor, 2004; Soydan, 1996, p. 122). Elsewhere in the literature, there exist several comparative studies that consider the different welfare systems in which social work is anchored (Shardlow & Hämäläinen, 2015). Nonetheless, in the area of SSW, the majority of publications focus on SSW as a work area of the social work profession (Huxtable & Blyth, 2002), youth work (Chui, 2013, p. XIII), or as a form of cooperation between two systems, particularly CYW and the school (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend [BMFSFJ], 2013; Lerch-Wolfrum & Renges, 2014).

Consequently, there is a lack of a deeper consideration of SSW in the context of a welfare regime. It is the aim of the present study to contribute to filling this research gap, to identify similarities and especially differences in the nature and role of SSW, as well as to find explanations for these with respect to each country-specific context. Therefore, two countries were needed that represent different welfare regimes rich in contrast.

Within the frame of cross-national comparative studies, welfare regimes are usually investigated based on typologies that reduce “observed complexity”

(Van Kersbergen, 2019, pp. 116–118). In this study, a typology developed by

Esping-Andersen (1990) was applied that differentiates between conservative/

corporatist, social democratic and liberal welfare regimes, which represent three ideal-typical regimes (Aspalter, 2019a, p. 301).¹ Accordingly, the German welfare regime is considered conservative/corporatist in that services are primarily delivered by non-public providers and it is shaped by the principle of subsidiarity; in contrast, the Finnish welfare regime is called ‘social-democratic’

by Esping-Andersen in that it is mainly the state that is involved in delivering services (Esping-Andersen, 1990), although there are nowadays various other agencies involved as well (Kröger, 1999, p. 58).

Third, there is, to this day, a lack of English-language literature about SSW in both countries; in recent years, there are numerous publications that focus on SSW in Germany (Haase, 2017; Just, 2016; Reinecke-Terner, 2017) and in Finland (Jauhiainen, 1993; Pippuri, 2015; Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004; Tallavaara, 2011; Wallin, 2011). However, almost all publications regarding SSW are in the German or Finnish² language, which is why it is difficult to access them in international scientific communication. Thus, this study provides information concerning SSW in Germany and Finland that was previously unknown outside of these countries in order to enable international communication and exchange of information. In light of the above, the present study “is about mutual understanding and shared learning, rather than about teaching how social problems have to be solved in a specific and universal way, regardless of society and culture” (Borrmann, Klassen & Spatscheck, 2007, p. 11); hence, ethnocentrism must be overcome in cross-national comparative research (Askeland & Payne, 2006).

To conclude, Germany and Finland were chosen as the comparative countries as the development of SSW in both countries was shaped by

1 This typology is not without criticism; hence, it has been criticised on a theoretical level, such as that it only provides a limited range of countries, on a methodological level and concerning its empirical validity (Bambra, 2007, pp. 1100–1101). Also, the types represent three ideal-typical welfare regimes (Aspalter, 2019a, p. 301). While some details may not show up when using ideal-typologies, they enable “the greater picture” to be shown (Aspalter, 2019b, p. 316). Hence, using this typology was seen as an adequate frame.

2 See, for example, Andersson et al. (2002) for Finland, Wulfers (2002) for Germany and Julkunen and Walther (2019) for both countries.

legislative changes, and as both countries are classified as having different welfare regimes (conservative/corporative in Germany and social-democratic in Finland). Finally, there is a great dearth of English publications concerning SSW in both countries.