Peter Fleissner: pioneer of the Partner State model

Two months ago, during a lecture tour which brought me to Vienna, Austria, I had the occasion to meet a remarkable man, Peter Fleissner, a retired researcher of the TU Wien. Though our exchanges had were fascinating, it is only now that I found the time to go through the set of links that Peter had provided me with.

Here is one of the very interesting articles that I recommend, in which, after a critique of the limits and weaknesses of the current welfare state models, and a critique of bureaucracy for its high transaction cost, Peter Fleisnner proposes an approach which is remarkably congruent with the Partner State approach we have been presenting and defending recently.

Here’s a significant paragraph giving an idea of the approach:

“This feature of new technologies of changing not only quantities, but essentially also qualities inspired the members of the Institute for Design and Assessment of Technology at Vienna University of Technology (TU Wien) to look for alternative ways of providing services related to the Welfare State .

The idea is quite simple: Neither large scale institutions nor the individuals on their own are in a position to cope adequately with the negative aspects of human existence. Therefore we propose the establishment of new group based institutions assisted by contemporary communication tools and adequate training opportunities. When I worked for the European Commission we convened an international workshop to discuss the emergence of these new groups. To give the baby a name we called them “Targeted Intelligence Networks” (TINs). Their common feature is the voluntary cooperation of a few number of people in groups towards a certain goal. But I am realistic enough that it will not be sufficient just to trust in the post-modern fashion of self-organisation and to wait for its implementation. My position is rather that a framework has to be created within which these new forms can emerge. This framework is not only composed by encouraging words and media campaigns, but also by financial, infrastructural, material and educational resources to empower people to take over their new tasks voluntarily. This implies also certain ways of compensation and remuneration for their efforts and their contribution to society.

Therefore at Vienna University of Technology we started by screening various sectors of society for already existing alternatives. Interestingly enough we could identify seeds of new developments in each of the four essential areas of the welfare state: in the areas of elderly care, of education, of health care and in employment.

“Peer Group Care” in addition to the traditional social welfare system for the elderly, poor, disabled and other outsiders; “Study Circles” to complement traditional schools; “Workers’ Health Assurance Groups” to improve the occupational ill-health status, and “Intrapreneurial Groups” against alienation in the workplace are examples to illustrate how the Welfare State could be transformed, but not be replaced.

The essay describes the four examples before concluding with suggestions on how the present welfare state model could be amended and transformed to a higher level, complemented by mutual care.

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.