Subido por EliFer Barreto

Nordic Welfare: The world's supermodel?

Anuncio
Nordic
Welfare:
the world’s
supermodel?
Elisa Fernanda Barreto Pérez 1
I
Introduction
In 2013, The Economist published a note inviting the readers to learn more
about the new world’s supermodel. In the note, the author stated the Nordic
model as a role model for both right wing and left wing politicians in order to
improve American polity. He described how well the Nordics have been doing
in different development areas, from economic competitiveness to happiness
rates, implementing welfare policies with low budget deficit and high quality
public services.
This statement is my starting point to introduce the main goal of this essay,
which is to find answer to the questions: what is the Nordic welfare model?
What are the main differences between Nordic countries’ welfare policies and
what are the challenges they face today?
As the newspaper pointed out, the Nordics have brought a new way to develop a
strong welfare state in a more pragmatic than ideological way, “the state is popular
not because it is big but because it works” (The Economist, 2013). For a clearer
discussion, I will refer to Scandinavian and Nordic countries as when talking about
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland as some authors do (for instance,
Knudsen and Rothstein 1994; Alestalo, Hort and Kuhnle, 2009).
It is important to notice that the Nordics have built a special identity
through the years. After the Nordic Council in 1952, Norway, Sweden,
Denmark, Iceland and some time later Finland2, started a path of mutual
cooperation taking advantage of the geographical, social, historical,
political and economical characteristics they have in common. As Mikko
Lagerspetz (2003: 52) distinguished, European geographical divisions
have shaped the identities of countries and societies through history.
These geopolitical identities steer the activities and decisions that
governments make as a result of the categorization that was constructed
over the years. Today, the five Nordic countries, plus the autonomous
Faroe Islands, Åland and Greenland have been characterized for being a
well-integrated region with a profound social concern.
In this regard, the Northern periphery of Europe3 has built a good
reputation for the way of solving problems in the public sphere. Besides
the geographical characteristics, they share long historical and political
relations, Scandinavian language affinity, Protestant Christianity, well
defined local governments, effective rule of law and gender equality
(Lagerspetz, 2003: 55–56).
These characteristics introduce us to the definition of the Nordic welfare model.
This essay has four sections: the first one answers the opening question
that I proposed in the introduction: what is exactly the Nordic welfare
model? Emphasizing in two characteristics: universalism and equality.
In the second section, I notice the main differences between the
Nordic countries welfare systems and some of the best-known policies
implemented are discussed, I will center the attention on childcare
policies. The third section contains an account of the main challenges
the Nordic countries have in order to maintain of their welfare state in a
less homogenous society and increasingly neo-liberal global trends. And
finally, in the fourth section, I summarize the main concepts revised as
concluding remarks.
Licenciatura en Administración Pública, Universidad de Guanajuato. Correo electrónico: efbarreto.03@gmail.com
Finland’s later addition in 1955 also responded to a special context in which the Finish state had to
withdraw from other economical and political alliances as the cooperation with the Baltic countries
(Lagerspetz, 2003: 51).
3
In this case, the center-periphery approach is used to explain how the “northerners” historically had to
recurred to the “southerly centers” in order to extend their culture and knowledge. Today, the Nordics are
part of the most advanced countries in the world though; see Allardt (2000: 129).
1
2
Punto y Seguido. Número 4.
The Nordic Welfare Model
Around 1930s, Sweden started to gain the international attention for the
“middle way” system they were implementing; this is, the equilibrium
between a strong state intervention and a liberal capitalism (Kildal
and Kuhnle, 2005: 5). After Sweden, the rest of the Nordic countries
followed its steps and started building what scholars know today as the
Nordic (welfare) model.
We can define the Nordic model as a model that combines a wellintegrated state-society relation, strong local government administration
and the delivery of public services with an egalitarian and universal scope
(Kildal and Kuhnle, 2005; Knudsen and Rothstein, 1994). The core of
this welfare model is to reach economic efficiency, empower society and
“enrich and equalize the living conditions” of the citizens (Erikson et al.
1987, in Kildal and Kuhnle, 2005: 5).
To understand the Nordic model we need to make a revision of its two
main pillars: universalism and equality.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word universal as a
characteristic that includes all the people in the world or in a particular
group. In a welfare policy context, we can understand universalism as a
quality that involves a big part of a community.
The principal characteristic that universalism brings to the welfare
model is that it is expected to cover the most of society, based on the
fact that democratic states assure political status and social rights in an
egalitarian way for the citizens (Kildal and Kuhnle, 2005: 14). In this
regard and following the argument of Kildal and Kuhnle (2005), the
welfare universalism has two dimensions: membership and allocation.
On the one hand, the membership dimension recognizes the citizens as
part of a specific population category such as families, seniors, underage people or workers. In a welfare universal model, people will receive
the social rights that correspond to the community they are part of.
Ensayo
Elisa Fernanda Barreto Pérez.
Even when the policies are very often targeted for poor people, in the
Nordic model we can find a wide catalogue of policies for working
population or families; where also middle and upper classes are
integrated as beneficiaries of welfare services.
Allocation, on the other hand can be described as the discretionary way
to assign the welfare benefits. Professional evaluations are needed in
order to have a better and more efficient assignation of services (Kildal
and Kuhnle, 2005: 15). In this sense, decision-makers should be able
to have different degrees of discretional margin and a category-based
framework (Kildal and Kuhnle, 2005).
Allocation and membership are characteristics that work as filters in
the distribution of benefits (Kildal and Kuhnle, 2005: 16). Denmark for
instance, has introduced in the recent years a multi-tiered system that
differentiates between social groups (Kvist and Greve, 2011).
Danish unemployment policy named “More in work” introduced in
2003 has two tracks, one for native and one for non-native people. Also
couples can have more benefits if each one works at least 450 hours.
The second pillar of the Nordic welfare model is equality. We can find two
assertions derived from the egalitarian perspective: the Nordic welfare
model is actor-oriented and multidimensional (Kvist et al. 2011: 2). It is
actor-oriented because it tries to promote well being at individual level
and multidimensional levels because it includes material, intangible and
collective resources as essential supplies for each person.
The Nordic model literature rests in great measure in the arguments of
Amartya Sen’s economic inequality and John Rawls’ Theory of Justice
(Kvist et al. 2011).
Amartya Sen makes a wide approach about inequality in which he makes
a differentiation between income inequality and capability of use the
resources. Sen bases his study in the fact that personal characteristics
may shape the way individuals are capable to use the resources they
have at hand:
Punto y Seguido. Número 4.
“If the objective is to concentrate on the individual’s real
opportunity to pursue her objectives, then account would have
to be taken not only of the primary goods the person holds
but also of the relevant personal characteristics that govern
the conversion of primary goods into the person’s ability to
promote her ends.” (Sen 1997: 393)
In this sense, the capabilities that older, ill or disabled people has, make
them be in disadvantage to the rest of the people.
Meanwhile, John Rawls sets justice as the primary subject of social
institutions and the distribution of “fundamental rights and duties and
(…) the division of advantages from social cooperation” as their major
task (Rawls, 1999: 6). With this assertion he introduces the veil of
ignorance, this is, the starting point of which social institutions should
place individuals in order to achieve a fair distribution of benefits. This
original position assures the cooperation of equal individuals in favor of
mutual gains (Rawls, 1999: 13).
Following the arguments of Rawls and Sen, justice and equality have
to be conceived in a broader way, considering individual conditions,
capabilities and social systems, and not only the distribution of the
income. Equality from this stand point guarantees that individuals would
have the same rights and duties, and that the cooperation between
actors results in benefits also for the less advantaged.
In the same way, the Nordic struggle against social inequalities make use
of education, health care and social services, more than cash benefits.
In words of Kvist and others “the development of welfare states, the
social services constitute a cornerstone for reducing social inequalities
by giving equal access to healthcare, elderly care, education and hence
guaranteeing equal opportunities in life” (2011: 9).
Summarizing, universalism means that all the citizens would have the
same opportunity to access to the welfare system and will receive
benefits in virtue of the social category they are placed in. The social
Ensayo
Elisa Fernanda Barreto Pérez.
institutions ensure that rights and duties are distributed in order to
improve citizens’ capability to use the resources.
On the other hand, one of the main actual debates concentrates on
if today we can talk about a universal system when the Scandinavian
countries are experimenting a big wave of immigration and the societies
are becoming less homogeneous (Alestalo, Hort and Kuhnle, 2009).
However, I will return to this point later.
It should be stressed that Alestalo, Hort and Kuhnle (2009: 3) place
stateness as one of the main characteristics of the “master statements”
of the welfare model in the same level of universalism and equality. I
will not refer to the stateness as a pillar but as the ground floor of the
Nordic welfare model and in any case, of every welfare model. The pillars
I am referring to above can be reshaped by the context and redefine
the scope of welfare policies by external factors (such as migration).
Moreover, the ground floor presents bigger challenges for being
modified from the exterior or at least cannot be replaced, that is to say,
stateness represents an “insider” characteristic. Stateness places the
government as the protagonist who can define in which degree other
actors or “intermediary structures” can intervene (Ibid.). In this regard,
each Nordic country has made different decisions in the extent of the
state intervention. I will make clear this differentiated way to develop
their welfare systems in the next section.
Nordic welfare systems in comparative perspective
The Nordic countries have been known for their special concern about
the incorporation of women to the labor market, strengthen the parentchild relation, and the long-term saving schemes. In a comparative
analysis, the Nordic countries present a set of varied differences in their
different Welfare policies. Being part of a homogeneous region with
wide similarities doesn’t deny the individual agenda that each country
follows. As Allardt (2000: 131) pointed out, in the decision making
process, national interests always come first than the Nordic-level ones.
Punto y Seguido. Número 4.
As it was said before, stateness plays an important role in the
establishment of welfare schemes. Sweden and Denmark, the first
ones to develop welfare systems, have broad differences in the role that
institutions play. On the one hand, the liberal Danish tradition allows
actors from the private sector to participate in an easier way in the
provision of welfare services than the other Scandinavian countries. On
the contrary, the Swedish centralized administration makes it harder for
the privates to intervene in the welfare administration; instead, Sweden
takes advantage of larger bureaucracies and more intrusive policies
(Knudsen and Rothstein, 1994: 216).
In the recent years, Denmark, for instance, has extended the private childcare institutions and the citizens can choose between public or private
ones. Private institutions have multiplied and even when municipalities
establish the fees, they can set charges for other activities, as a result,
child-care has increased its costs (Kvist and Greve, 2011:150). There is
a rise also in private health insurance and private pension system, Kvist
and Greve point that these new schemes of multi-tiered allocations
bring social inequalities since “high income earners have better options
than low income earners” (2011: 153).
In general, the Nordics are family-friendly countries and have a special
concern about public childcare and parental leave for the development
of the child in the firsts years. In comparison to central and southern
Europe, the Northern periphery has higher fertility rates, which are not
against the high rates of women in the labor market. There are three
policies that catch the eye in the Nordic welfare system: the effective
day-care system, cash-for-care benefit and the father’s quota.
The universal day care system permits every child to receive care
attention as a social right. The cash for care scheme allows parents to
stay at home with the child while receiving financial support from the
State; parents can decide if the mother or the father stays with the child.
The father’s quotas on the other side, seek to promote gender equality
and improve the connection between the father and the child; the
Ensayo
Elisa Fernanda Barreto Pérez.
Punto y Seguido. Número 4.
On the other side, the Nordic welfare scheme also promotes the social
security in a “business-friendly environment”; Sweden for instance,
introduced in 2007 “lower replacement rates in unemployment
insurance and simultaneously reduced state job creation measures”
(Alestalo, Hort and Kuhnle, 2009: 31). Nordic countries have very low
unemployment rates4 and the unemployment insurance has very strict
assignation rules. Furthermore, with the high level of immigration they
are experimenting, non-employment is still on the agenda.
quotas are not transferable and work under a use-it-or-lose-it scheme
(Eydal and Rostgaard, 2011: 165). Father’s quotas are a benefit apart
from the general parental leave.
In childcare policies, Sweden and Norway have the most flexible system
between the Nordics, “parents can combine part-time day-care and
partial allowance” (Eydal and Rostgaard, 2011: 170). Norway was the
first country to establish father’s quota in 1993 and was followed by
Sweden and Iceland. Today, Norwegian fathers can have 12 weeks off
of work. Swedish parents have 480 days of paid parental leave, of those
60 days are exclusively for the father. Iceland has the most egalitarian
scheme for parental leave, both parents can have three months and
three more months can be taken by either of the parents.
Challenges
Alesto, Hort and Kuhnle (2009) assert that there are five main
challenges that the Nordic countries face today: International migration,
Globalization and European integration, Economic development,
transformation of the class structure and ideological changes.
Finland on the other hand, has not introduced father quotas and was
the last one to introduce the cash-for-care policy. In Denmark, fathers
have only two weeks of parental leave, and the parents who are inside
the labor market cannot receive cash allowance, while in Sweden the
parents cannot receive it if they are getting benefits of some other
social support.
Since 1970, Nordic countries have received a large amount of refugees,
asylum seekers and family migrants (Alestalo, Hort and Kuhnle, 2009:
18). These demographic changes represent a modification in several
social spheres; for instance, Sweden, Norway and Denmark had a rise in
the number of Muslim and Catholic groups. For a very secularized and
historically Protestant society, this phenomenon is a challenge because
these religious associations also play a role as welfare services providers.
A less homogeneous population brings to the table some questions
for further research: what will happen with the children born in Nordic
countries? Which schemes will be the framework for future allocations
and membership for the universal welfare state? Will it still be universal?
Additionally, childcare is a local service, that is, municipalities are
responsible of the delivery of day-care. Iceland was the last country to
introduce the day-care scheme in 2009, when 11 out of 77 municipalities
established it. Municipalities also seem to be touched by the financial crisis,
for instance, Denmark and Iceland have reduced costs by decreasing the
opening hours and the benefits of the parental leave, respectively.
A more fragmented population is also seen as a challenge since the social
structures in Nordic countries are changing. During the consolidation
of the Welfare system as we know it, the Nordic societies had more
workers and farmers than urban population. Today, this characteristic
has reversed with a big proportion of well-educated middle class. This
change in class structure represents a challenge because workers and
farmers were partly responsible of the universal, equal and state-centered
welfare schemes that the Nordic model has today (ibid.); the fact that
In addition to this, the Nordic countries also promote the early return
of women to the labor market after maternity leave with the benefits
of the day-care system, especially in Denmark. It is important to remark
that middle class fathers tend to take the “father’s quota” more than
lower class dads, and migrant families tend to take the cash-for-care
benefits more than the nationals (Alestalo, Hort and Kuhnle, 2009;
Eydal and Rostgaard, 2011).
4
Unemployment represents 7.1% in the region, 7.3% average for Nordic men and 6.8% for women (Norden, 2014).
Ensayo
Elisa Fernanda Barreto Pérez.
they are reduced might let us think that it would have consequences in
short and long terms.
The Neo-liberal agenda also represents a challenge. When the
economical crisis hit Sweden and Finland in the 1990’s, the Nordic
Welfare state was strongly questioned for its “excessively generous
sickness and unemployment benefits”. Today, Finish and Swedish
economies are recovered and present a high growth; however, there is a
special attention on the argument that the intromission of the State in
people affairs creates dependence and “worsens the problems it sets out
to solve” (Alestalo, Hort and Kuhnle, 2009: 24).
Nygård (2006) states, by the average of the party positions, that
Denmark and Sweden are the most open to a market orientation while
Norway, Iceland and Finland have remained to the idea of Welfare
maintenance. Anyway, “the positive attitudes towards the welfare state”
prevail stable (Nygård, 2006: 376).
The Europeanization is also a concern for citizens and academics.
Nordic countries have had different stances in respect of the European
integration. Denmark was the first Nordic member-state to join the
European Union, followed by Sweden and Finland. However, the two
Scandinavian countries remain using their local currency while Finland
entered the Eurozone in 1999. Norway and Iceland stayed outside
the Union but they are part of it as the three others of the European
Economic Area (Alestalo, Hort and Kuhnle, 2009: 19). The five of them
have become more integrated to the Union and its internal market,
which can be a concern with regard to the social model.
Conclusion
Summarizing, I described how we could define the Nordic model taking
the geographical identities into account. The way Nordic countries solve
public issues helped positioning them as social-democratic countries5,
with a wide concern of universal and egalitarian coverage.
5
The “social-democratic” model is a very debated concept since historically the Nordics have had
minoritarian governments and the allies between parties have been a rule more than an exception. In
this regard, we cannot say the Nordic Welfare Model has been a pure social-democratic achievement, see
Alestalo, Hort and Kuhnle 2009.
Punto y Seguido. Número 4.
The degree of state intervention and the scope of the policies change
between the five Nordic countries. Nonetheless, Finland and Denmark
show a more open scheme for private welfare services providers but this
doesn’t mean the Welfare schemes are disappearing in these countries.
Finally, Nordic countries do not have it as easy as we could think; the
high level of immigration and the economic crisis are virtual challenges
for the continuity of high effective welfare systems. It is stated that
Welfare states need the prosperity of economy in order to survive since
welfare schemes disincentive the inversion (Offe, 1984). They cannot
deny the capitalist schemes of their policies since the Nordic model can
be described in a very broad way as “a platform of state regulated socially
modified capitalism” (Kildal and Kuhnle, 2005: 5). Claus Offe said that
this is the contradiction of welfare states: capitalism can’t survive with
or without welfare schemes (1984: 143).
It is not surprising that The Economist report (mentioned in the
introduction of this essay), showed some surprise of the efficient and
effective way public services are delivered in the Nordic countries
since there are numerous reliable defenders of the negative impact of
high taxes on the market. But Nordics have built one of the strongest
economies in the world, even when “growth and efficiency are not the
sole goals of Scandinavian national welfare politics” (Alestalo, Hort and
Kuhnle, 2009: 26).
We should be aware of the next moves of this supermodel, waiting for
changes that will arise between the member countries and looking
forward to analyze their impact in the rest of the world. This could be a
topic for further research.
Ensayo
Elisa Fernanda Barreto Pérez.
Bibliography
Alestalo, Matti Hort, Sven E. O. and Kuhnle Stein. (2009). The
Nordic Model: Conditions, origins, outcomes, lessons, Hertie School of
Governance, Working Papers, No. 41.
Allardt, Erik. 2000. A political sociology of the Nordic countries, European
Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 129–141.
Booth, Michael. 2015. “Stop the Scandimania: Nordic nations aren’t the
utopias they’re made out to be”, The Washington Post, Retrieved on 8
May 2015 from:
«http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/
stop-the-scandimania-nordic-nations-arentthe-utopias-theyre-madeout-to-be/2015/01/16/8f818408-9aa0-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_
story.html»
Eydal, G. B. and Rostgaard, T. 2011. “Gender Equality Revisited – Changes
in Nordic Childcare Policies in the 2000s”, Social Policy & Administration,
45: pp. 161–179.
Kildal, Nanna and Kuhnle, Stein. 2005. “The Nordic welfare model and the
idea of universalism”, in Kildal and Kuhnle (eds) Normative Foundations
of the Welfare State: The Nordic Experience, London: Routledge. ProQuest
ebrary, pp.13–33.
Knudsen, T. and Rothstein B. 1994. “State-building in Scandinavia”,
Comparative Politics. Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 203–220.
Kvist, Jon, et al. 2011. “Changing social inequality and the nordic welfare
model”, in Kvist Jon et al. (eds.) Changing Social Equality: The Nordic
Welfare Model in the 21st Century, Bristol: Policy Press. ProQuest ebrar,
pp. 1–22.
Kvist, J. and Greve, B. 2011. “Has the Nordic Welfare Model Been
Transformed?”, Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 45: pp. 146–160.
LAGERSPETZ, Mikko. 2003. “How many Nordic countries?”, Cooperation
and Conflict, Vol. 38, No.1, pp. 49–61.
Punto y Seguido. Número 4.
Nygard, Mikael. 2006. “Welfare ideological change in Scandinavia: A
comparative analysis of partisan welfare state positions in four Nordic
countries, 1970-2003”, Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.
356-385.
Norden. 2014. Nordic Statistical Yearbook 2014. Retrieved on 8 May
2015 from: «www.norden.org»
Oxford English Dictionary. nd. Oxford English Dictionaries (Online).
Retrieved on 8 May 2015 from: «http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
definition/learner universal»
Offe, Claus. 1984. Contradictions of the Welfare State, Cambridge Mass.,
The MIT Press.
Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice, Massachusetts: Hardvard
University Press.
Knudsen, T. and Rothstein B. 1994. “State-building in Scandinavia”,
Comparative Politics, Vol 26, No. 2, pp. 203–220.
Sen, Amartya K. 1997. “From Income Inequality to Economic Inequality”,
Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 384–401.
The next supermodel. 2013. The Economist. Retrieved on 6 May
2015 from: «http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136politicians-both-right-and-leftcould-learn-nordic-countries-nextsupermodel»
Ensayo
Elisa Fernanda Barreto Pérez.
Descargar