The Swedish welfare state and the paradox of redistribution
The Swedish model of welfare state is characterized by an apparent paradox. It is through universal benefits generous and seemingly anti-redistribute, geared towards the needs and tastes of the middle classes, that social democratic governments in Sweden have tried to fight against poverty and reduce inequality Social, a successful strategy as evidenced rates of poverty and inequality among the lowest in Sweden monde. The displays a level of inequality and poverty rates the lowest in Europe: 20% more rich of the population earn only 3.3 times more than the poorest 20%, against 4.2 times more in France, 5.3 more in the United Kingdom, 7.2 or even more in Portugal [1]. The child poverty rate is 3.6% in Sweden against 7.3% in France or 16.8% in the UK. The poverty rate among single parents is 9.3% in Sweden against 26.6% in France or 40.7% in the UK. Finally, the poverty rate among the 65 and older is 7.8% in Sweden against 10.5% in France or 14.4% in the UK [2]. The paradox of the Swedish redistribution [3]
These good results are attributable to the strategy of redistribution implemented by the Social-Democratic party which has been in power almost uninterrupted from 1932 to 2006 and was the chief architect of the Swedish welfare state. This strategy of redistribution is based mainly on the provision of universal social services, particularly for child care and care for elderly dependants. These services are relatively uniform but of good quality, funded by government and tailored to the tastes and expectations of the middle classes. A basic principle is that every citizen should have access to these services according to their needs, not its means. Indeed, if the costs of user involvement is based on the income level of individuals, this amount is still capped at a very low level, which means that wealthier people pay comparatively less - in proportion to their income — That the less affluent for the same service. Such a strategy may seem at first anti-redistribute and on this to an apparent paradox of the Swedish model. Yet is the key to strong system’s ability to reduce social inequalities, but also the political legitimacy of the welfare system.
The capacity of these services to reduce social inequalities is that the whole population, whatever their income level, enjoys the same quality service. For the Social Democrats this point is particularly important in regard to the admission of young children, the aim being to give equal opportunities to all children from their earliest age by guaranteeing everyone a place to crib from the age of one year. It is also supporting the work of mothers by ensuring the necessary services to their investment in the labour market, which explains why poverty rates comparatively low in Sweden among families with children and especially among single-parent families.
The conditions of legitimacy of the Swedish welfare state
In order to ensure the same quality reception for all and to promote social mixing, but also to guarantee the resources necessary to operate a quality public service, the Social Democrats had sought to oust the market sector and maintain the middle class and wealthy in the bosom of public service.
Such a strategy is nevertheless an essential condition: that the middle class and wealthy are willing to finance these services through the tax - a tax which in Sweden is highly progressive and which is at a high level (between 30 and 50 % Of income). Or so the middle classes are willing to pay a tax so high (and they continue to elect a party, namely the Social Democratic Party, which supports this level of taxation), they must consider they received benefits in exchange satisfactory.
If they did more for their money, “or if access to these services is too expensive, the middle classes are likely to turn away public services and no longer want to pay so many taxes. Without sufficient fiscal resources, the poor could then enjoy quality services.
The fact to cap the cost of participation of the richest for accessing services and aims to reduce the risk of defection middle-class public service and to avoid creating a demand for alternative services would be private source more great social inequalities. Thus the guarantee for all access to universal quality services at a very low cost part of the conditions of possibility and legitimacy of the Swedish model of welfare state. It is through benefits and universal services funded collectively by a highly progressive tax, not as in many countries, through measures targeted at the poorest, a significant redistribution takes place in Sweden and that inequalities are addressed.
The Prime Minister Olof Palme explained the strategy and universalist in a speech at Harvard University in 1984: “If the efforts of the company are focused on its weakest members through social policies under selective conditions resources, taxpayers come to think in terms of ‘us’ and’ them ‘. “We” - employees and more affluent middle class - must pay to the state but receive nothing in return. The ground is prepared for the disintegration of social solidarity. [...] The argument that I try to emphasize is that the weakest members of society are better protected and not giving them special treatment but by including them in programs that extend to all members of society “(Olof Palme, The Jerry Wurf Memorial Lecture, Harvard University 3 / 4, 1984).
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment