Comparative Insights on Social Service Provision: Lessons from Five Western Democracies

The shift from direct state provision to outsourced models involving private and third-sector organizations has expanded governments' roles in procurement regulation, supervision, and coordination. While much research has explored welfare state typologies and market-driven service provision, less attention has been given to the actors themselves. This research addresses this gap by examining how procurement approaches prioritize different actors in service delivery, comparing how five states—Australia, England, Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands—manage trade-offs in service provision while ensuring equitable access, quality, and competence amid decentralization and outsourcing. Using qualitative methods, including document analysis, legal text review, and expert interviews, this study identifies the actors in social procurement, focusing on the "service triad": the buyer (government agency), provider (service entity), and end-customer (service user). It also contributes to the debate on service quality across sectors, noting that factors beyond ownership type influence quality. Preliminary findings suggest that social service procurement often operates under distinct legal frameworks separate from general public procurement law, offering flexibility in provider selection. While these frameworks do not prioritize the third sector, they allow for criteria that emphasize public-benefit social values. The study reveals a trend toward decentralization, with local authorities taking on more responsibility for service provision, while central governments maintain control over funding and policy. This decentralization fosters innovation but requires regulation to ensure consistency and fairness. Independent regulatory bodies are critical in ensuring compliance and balancing efficiency, equity, and accountability. These insights provide valuable lessons for improving social service procurement strategies. These findings highlight the need for flexible practices, strong partnerships, and enhanced regulatory frameworks to ensure quality and accountability. Lessons from these democracies offer insights into improving social service procurement for a more efficient, responsive, and inclusive system.