The Swedish Model, part 2







Introduction to politics
Education and training
Governance & privatization
Legitimacy & efficiency
Drivers of change
Seminar on the literature
Seminar on individual papers
Lars Niklasson
Lars Niklasson
Bo Persson
Lars Niklasson
Elin Wihlborg
7. Introduction to the politics
of the welfare state
 1976-82-91-94: Challenges and decentralization
 1995: Membership of the European Union
 Late 90s: Cutbacks to save the welfare state
 Too generous to work?




2006: Back to ”work for welfare” (Arbetslinjen)
= Reforms to save the welfare state?
Influence from 1997: The European Social Model
Whereto? A Social Investment State?
A new type of welfare state?
(Morel, Palier & Palme, intro)
 1. Social investments in skills and modern needs/risks
(work/family life, change of careers etc.)
 = an Economist’s perspective on welfare: utility rather than
social rights, ”productive social policy”
 = Collective responsibility
 Alva and Gunnar Myrdal: families and women
 (Wanted selective policies)
 2. Keynes: the macro economy, more traditional/male
 3. Neoliberals: rigidities, market distortions, gov’t failure
 Three paradigms (table 1.1) SIWS as a hybrid
A new type of welfare state,
continued
 Critique:
 Less support for passive unemployment with the focus on
”activation”
 Less support to stay outside the labor market
 Bad implementation of policies against exclusion in the Lisbon
strategy
 An instrumental view on women and children (as labor force)
 Divergent views (Nordic vs Anglo-Liberal):
 Esping-Andersen on positive effects of social rights, aim for equality,
combination of investment and protection
 Giddens on moral hazard and duties, beneficial inequalities, support as
springboard, from passive to active measures
Waves of transformation
(Hemerijk 2012)
 1. Keynesianism after WWII (the Depression)
 From charity to right, taming capitalism, class compromise,
embedded liberalism (Bretton Woods)
 2. Neoliberalism after the 70s (Stagflation)
 Monetarism (balanced budgets, low inflation, stable currency),
flexibility, gov’t as problem, selective policies
 OECD Jobs Study 1994: high unemployment in Europe, EMU to
limit politics, social pacts/not cutbacks
 3. Social investment since 90s (the Third Way)
 OECD 1996, EU 1997, Esping-Andersen et al 2002. A balance. The
welfare state can be positive for competitiveness. Structural (not
cyclical) unemployment needs capacitating services
Social investment
(Jenson 2012)








Beyond neoliberalism: critics on the left and right
Investment (not spending) = future profits
Responsibility mix: market, family, community, state
Universal coverage
Fostering prevention, rights and duties
Governance through networks: communities (?)
(Sweden: Learning accounts, citizen choice?)
Neoliberalism failed: high spending & problems in Europe,
experiments in Asia, revised ideas 1997 (World Bank)
Ageing populations
(Lindh 2012)









Demographic transition: problem and opportunity
Ageing population effect in 2030-40
National variety, National Transfer Accounts
Transfers over the life cycle: independence, retirement
Life expectancy, fertility rates: dependency rates
Work longer, have more babies: welfare support
Pensions: savings or pay-as-you-go
Parental leave
Consequences for jobs: more services, less goods
Post-crisis policy
(Diamond & Liddle 2012)
 More barriers to European social policy due to
aftershocks of the crisis, especially public finance





Direct effects: unemployment, austerity
EU divergence
Globalisation winners and losers
Demography
Migration
 The state remains big but changes its role (NPM)
 An opportunity for a European Social Model?
Climate policy
(Sommestad 2012)
 Social policies to support climate policy
 Market-based climate policies: emissions trading
 Income equality leads to better climate (?)
 Public ethos, economic instruments regressive
 Sectoral impact: less agriculture, energy-intensive
industries, more transport
 Need for industrial policy, employment policy, dialogue,
public investments (-- a role for markets, banks?)
 The new economics of sustainable development (Stern)
 Long-term investments in public goods: education etc.
From Lisbon to Europe 2020
(Lundvall & Lorenz 2012)
 The Lisbon Strategy (2000): wide and with a goal:
 ”The most competitive region in the world”
 ”Europe 2020” (2010): narrower, with priorities
 Smart, sustainable, inclusive growth (+targets)
 Continuity with the focused Lisbon Strategy 2005-10
 Still weak implementation (OMC), change of majority, SGP
 European Employment Strategy: quality jobs? Flexicurity?
Less competitiveness with less cohesion?
 No understanding of the learning economy (or EMU)
 A transnational welfare state needed = European identity
A new economic model
(Morel, Palier & Palme, conclusion)




A paradigm in search of a new economic model
Modernising ideas
Capacitating policies: education, family, employment
Weak implementation:
 Increase in expenditure, not investments
 Protection and promotion: the Nordics (NL, UK)
 Activation = third way = ”too close to neoliberalism”
 The analysis: disincentives, lack of flexibility
 The solution: working poor. (Conservation?) Skills are needed.
A new economic model, contd.




With high skill jobs, more difficult to employ migrants
New national accounts? Investments vs consumption
Political triggers: competition for the female vote
Against neoliberalism (– a new coalition of socialists
and conservatives? mercantilism, competitiveness)
 Germany not a viable alternative (?)
 Gradual change may lead to paradigmatic change
Morel, Palier & Palme 2012:
Towards a social investment welfare
state? Ideas, policies and challenges
 1. What are the differences between Giddens and EspingAndersen on Social Investment policies?
 2. What are the three waves reactions against?
 3. What are the differences between investments and savings?
 10. In what sense is demography an opportunity?
 11. Is the crisis an opportunity for a European Social Model?
 12. What is the link between social and climate policies?
 13. What is missing in Europe 2020?
 14. What kind of coalition(-s) would support a European Social
Model based on the idea of social investments?
8. Case study:
Education and training
 Two parts:
 Primary, secondary, tertiary education
 Skills development and training for adults
 Structures, actors, processes, achievements
 Challenges
 European comparisons (Morel, Palier & Palme 2012)
Education policy





Pre-school, primary school 1-9, secondary 10-12
National curricula, framework legislation and control
Local and private implementation
A strong focus on results since 2006: more uniform
A debate on segregation, vocational programs
Higher education
 Xx universities (PhD-granting)
 Yy colleges (limited PhD-granting)
 Several private, two independent
 Also some vocational tertiary education (YH)
 Student loans to study in Sweden and abroad
 Quasi-market since 1993:
 Formula funding, deregulation, quality control
 Fees for non-EES students (except exchange)
 What drives innovation in higher education?
 Competition and/or top-down inititives?
Labor market policy: training








Active labor market policy, ALMP = training programs
A national policy: people need to move to the jobs
Formerly regional and corporatist, now centralized
Performance targets lead to creaming
Exclusion: difficult to help clients with many needs
Local collaboration or competition?
Training programs by local and regional gov’ts too
”One door in”, joined-up government bottom-up:
 Infotek = guidance, Lärcentrum = co-location
Consistent? Efficient?
 The policies overlap in adult education





Are the systems integrated?
Do they promote equality (of opportunity/outcomes)?
Do they support individual development?
Do they support economic growth?
Next lecture on governance and privatization
Good for the citizens?
 More integrated public services?
 More adaptable services?
 Not good at solving complex problems, or these
problems are now more visible?
 Fighting exclusion
 Support for economic growth (better skills
development? A strong business climate?)
 Accountability?
OECD comparisons
(Nikolai 2012)









Compensatory policies: unemployment, old age
Investment policies: ALMP, family, education
Spending convergence over time
Spending in cash or in kind (services)
Expansion of old age insurance and family benefits
ALMP: more activation, less spending
Four clusters (low/high) Figure 4.3-4.6
Increased spending but less on education
Convergence on Scandinavia or the UK?
Employment policies
(de la Porte & Jacobsson 2012)
 The European Employment Strategy, EES 1997
 After EMU, to develop skills, part of the Lisbon Strategy
 Synergies of economic, labor market and social policies
 Targets the continental and Mediterranean countries





Soft policy, OMC: increased employment due to EES?
Policy frame: problem, goal, benchmarks, instruments
Contradicts the economic policy frame (EMU)
Flexi+curity, employability, a role for social partners
EES has become a reference point, but little change
Employment policies, contd
 The Nordic countries: big fit
 Less quality in activation, structural issues not reformed
 The English-speaking countries: fit
 UK: Domestically driven reforms, Ireland: ESF
 The Continental countries: misfit
 More activation, ”Modèle danois”, Hartz reforms
 The Mediterranean countries: misfit
 More flexibility, less security (opposite of social investment)
 The East European countries: low spending
 Activation and flexibility, weak social partners
Work-family policies
(Morgan 2012)
 Female employment, gender equality, child care
 Pioneers: France, Norway, Sweden
 Path-shifters: Germany, Netherlands, UK
 Slow-movers: Austria, Italy, Spain
 Political forces: new ideas? Barriers?
 Electoral strategies (Sweden and Norway)
 The representation of women in politics
 General conservatism in the slow-moving countries
Active labor market policy
(Bonoli 2012)
 Ambiguous concept. Four (six) types (table 7.1):
 Investment in human capital? (or incentives to work?)
 Pro-market orientation? (or temporary jobs?)
 Spending profiles in six countries (figure 7.1)
 General decline 1995-2005, except the UK
 Reduction of ”job creation”, increase of ”employment
assistance”, decline of ”training”
 Spending levels: Nordic, Continental, UK
 From education (60s), via occupation (70s) to re-entry
(90s). Laggards become leaders: Denmark, UK.
More and better jobs?
(Nelson & Stephens 2012)
 Investment policies are related to knowledge-intensive services and discretionary learning employment
 Problems: overeducation? Inhibiting business
investment? Relevant adjustment of content?
 But: markets aren’t perfect, education is undersupplied
(?), a need to recruit internationally
 Data: (1) 1972-99, (2) cross-sectional correlations
 USA at top and bottom
 Investments lead to employment and quality jobs
The globalizing learning economy
(Lundvall & Lorenz 2012)
 A need for organizational learning and networking
 Discretionary learning = more autonomy than in ”lean
production” (But: standardized processes!)
 North vs south
 High skill jobs less exposed to foreign competition
 Flexicurity makes it easy for firms to upgrade and makes
individuals less risk-averse
 Vocational training and informal learning
 Equality, openness and trust
 Learning by doing and by interaction with customers etc.
 Social investments on an international scale for migrants?
Morel, Palier & Palme 2012: Towards a
social investment welfare state?
 4. What spending patterns can we see over time?
 5. Which groups of countries have increased the
policies of activation?
 6. What are the political drivers and barriers for and
against equal rights for women?
 7. How did the laggards become leaders in ALMP?
 8. How can social investments lead to better jobs?
 9. What are the pros and cons of flexicurity?
Niklasson 1996:
”Quasi-markets in higher education –
A comparative analysis”
 1. What is the difference between ”market by design”
and ”market by interaction”?
 2. In what sense did the regulation of the universities
converge on a common model?
 3. In what sense did Sweden and the UK move in
opposite directions?