Swedish social policy for families and children Jan O. Jonsson - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Swedish social policy for families and children Jan O. Jonsson Nuffield College, Oxford; Swedish Institute for Social Research (SOFI) Carina Mood Swedish Institute for Social Research (SOFI); Institute for Futures Studies

Sweden

Sweden Population: 10 M (NZ 5M) • GDP/cap: Rank 16-18 (NZ 28-31) • HDI: Rank 14 (NZ 13) • Public expenditures ≈ 50% of GDP (NZ ≈ 40%) •

Sweden Population: 10 M (NZ 5M) • GDP/cap: Rank 16-18 (NZ 28-31) • HDI: Rank 14 (NZ 13) • Public expenditures ≈ 50% of GDP (NZ ≈ 40%) • Capitalist welfare state – regulated market economy, • large public sector

Sweden Population: 10 M (NZ 5M) • GDP/cap: Rank 16-18 (NZ 28-31) • HDI: Rank 14 (NZ 13) • Public expenditures ≈ 50% of GDP (NZ ≈ 40%) • Capitalist welfare state – regulated market economy, • large public sector Large immigration: around 20% foreign born •

Sweden Population: 10 M (NZ 5M) • GDP/cap: Rank 16-18 (NZ 28-31) • HDI: Rank 14 (NZ 13) • Public expenditures ≈ 50% of GDP (NZ ≈ 40%) • Capitalist welfare state – regulated market economy, • large public sector Large immigration: around 20% foreign born • Children 0- 15: ≈17% ( NZ ≈ 20%) •

Sweden Population: 10 M (NZ 5M) • GDP/cap: Rank 16-18 (NZ 28-31) • HDI: Rank 14 (NZ 13) • Public expenditures ≈ 50% of GDP (NZ ≈ 40%) • Capitalist welfare state – regulated market economy, • large public sector Large immigration: around 20% foreign born • Children 0- 15: ≈17% ( NZ ≈ 20%) • Fertility 1.9 (NZ=1.9) •

GDP per capita (US $, PPP) 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 Sweden 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 OECD - Total 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Source: OECD 2012 2014 2016

GDP per capita (US $, PPP) 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 New Zealand Sweden OECD - Total Source: OECD

Infant mortality rate (deaths/1000 <age 1) 100 120 20 40 60 80 0 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 New Zealand 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 Sweden 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 Source: Gapminder 2000 2004 2008 2012

Public social social spending, % of GDP Includes pensions, health, family, unemployment, illness, childcare, etc. Not education. Source: OECD

Rel elat ative e pov pover erty , 50% of median (OECD 2014) 50% of median: SW≈23,000 NZD (NZ ≈20,000 NZD) Disp eqv hh income 0-17: 14% All: 11% 0-17: 9% All: 9%

Poverty (50%md) before and after taxes & transfers (whole population) Poverty rate after taxes and transfers Poverty rate before taxes and transfers² % % 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 ISR TUR USA MEX LVA CHL EST ESP GRC CAN KOR ITA AUS PRT POL NZL GBR HUN CHE BEL DEU IRL SVN SWE AUT SVK FRA LUX NOR NLD ISL CZE FIN DNK Source: OECD 2016

Timeline of Swedish social policy

1930’s: Focus on family and health • Recession, unemployment, poverty • Lort-Sverige (”Dirty Sweden”) – housing, hygiene • Myrdal ”Crisis in the population question” – low nativity • Folkhemmet (”People’s home”), Social Democrats (Hansson)

1930’s: Focus on family and health • Preventive care for mothers (MVC) • Preventive care for children (BVC) • ”People’s dental care”, free for children • School health care • State funding for free school lunches • Child allowance 1937 (not fully universal) • Family housing: ”Barnrikehus” • Housing allowance

Post WW2: Building ”the strong society” • The record years: High growth, full employment • “The strong society” – a welfare state providing social protection for all people • Child allowance (1948), universal • Introduction of income-related social insurances (employer-employee-contributions) 1950s • Expansion of health care, child care • Introduction of the comprehensive school 1962- 72 • Housing ”The million programme” 1965- 75 • Parental leave introduced 1974 The “strong society” remained pretty strong until…

…1980s: ideological shift (mild 3 rd way) Privatization and marketization of the public sector • Reduced regulation of the market • 1990’s: Crisis Housing bubble, bank insolvency and bailout • Depression 1991 to 1993 – negative growth • Unemployment : from 2 to 10% • Cutbacks in benefits, e.g. reduced child allowance • Reduced replacement rates of social insurances •  Cash benefits suffered, welfare services not so much.

2000’s: Where are we now? 1990’s recession led to re-structuring of economic and social policy. Some parts of the ”strong society” never recovered despite high growth. Unemployment now 5- 6% in good times (2% before • recession) Increasing income inequality (both top and bottom) • Real income growth across distribution, but less • increase of benefits than earnings Lower replacement rates in social insurances – far • from universal income protection In-kind provision (health, child care) has however • continued to grow E.g., Maxtaxa – a major reform in 2002. Sharply • reduced child care fees.

The he Swedis Swedish welf welfar are state /

Welfare state components Universal or subsidized services Education, childcare, health, preventive care

Welfare state components Cash benefits Universal or universal subsidized Child allowance services Cash benefits, Education, childcare, means-tested health, Social preventive care Assistance, Housing Allowance

Welfare state components Cash benefits Universal or universal Social insurance, subsidized Child allowance income related + services basic protection Cash benefits, Education, Illness, disability, childcare, means-tested parenting health, Social preventive care Assistance, NB: not Housing unemployment Allowance

Welfare state components Cash benefits Universal or universal Social insurance, subsidized Child allowance income related + services basic protection Cash benefits, Education, Illness, disability, childcare, means-tested parenting health, Social preventive care Assistance, NB: not Housing unemployment Allowance Employer + employee Tax contributions

Universality ? • What is universal is primarily services: High quality child care, education, health care and preventive care at low or no cost • Same for all. Universal platform regardless of parental resources • Motives: – All children’s well-being and well-becoming – Investment (use full potential) – Equality of opportunity (fairness) • Cash benefits are a mix of universal/flat-rate, insurance based, and means-tested. Mostly insurance based.

Welfare state components Cash benefits Universal or universal Social insurance, subsidized Child allowance income related + INSURANCE services basic protection BASED Cash benefits, Education, Illness, disability, childcare, means-tested parenting health, Social preventive care Assistance, RESIDUAL NB: not Housing unemployment Allowance Employer + employee Tax contributions

Universality of cash benefits Income selectivity (means test) No Yes Other No selectivity Yes Housing allowance (conditions: age, family type) Selectivity on legal residency – debate Cf. Bergh 2004

Universality of cash benefits Income selectivity (means test) No Yes Other No Universal basic selectivity income Yes Housing allowance (conditions: age, family type) Selectivity on legal residency – debate Cf. Bergh 2004

Universality of cash benefits Income selectivity (means test) No Yes Other No selectivity Yes Housing allowance (conditions: age, family type) Selectivity on legal residency – debate Cf. Bergh 2004

Universality of cash benefits Income selectivity (means test) No Yes Other No selectivity Yes Child allowance Housing (condition: child) allowance (conditions: age, family type) Selectivity on legal residency – debate Cf. Bergh 2004

Universality of cash benefits Income selectivity (means test) No Yes Other No selectivity Yes Child allowance Housing (condition: child) allowance Social insurance (conditions: (condition: work age, family history) type) Selectivity on legal residency – debate Cf. Bergh 2004

Universality of cash benefits Income selectivity (means test) No Yes Other No selectivity Yes Child allowance Housing (condition: child) allowance Social insurance (conditions: (condition: work age, family history) type) Selectivity on legal residency – debate Cf. Bergh 2004

Universality of cash benefits Income selectivity (means test) No Yes Other No Social selectivity assistance Yes Child allowance Housing (condition: child) allowance Social insurance (conditions: (condition: work age, family history) type) Selectivity on legal residency – debate Cf. Bergh 2004