1.0 Introduction
1.1 Social
assistance
2.0 Placing social
assistance on the agenda
2.1 The number of
young people under long term unemployment
are increasing
2.2 The number of
single parents are increasing
3.0
Social assistance in Norway
4.0
Similarities with other countries
5.0
Differences with other countries
5.1
National arrangements
5.2
One or more support arrangements
5.3
Rights orientated versus condition orientated social assistance
5.4
Degree of legalization
5.5
Local or central responsibility
6.0
Four European traditions of social assistance
6.1
The Nordic tradition
6.2
The Latin tradition
6.3
The Continental tradition
6.4
The British tradition
7.0
Summary
8.0
Literature
1.0 Introduction
This
essay is written as an assignment for Oslo Summer School in Comparative Social
Studies 2003. The course was carried through in the week of July 28th to August 1st
2003 with Professor Ann Shola Orloff from Northwestern University Evanston,
USA, as lecturer. The subject for the course was Comparative Studies of Welfare
States: Gender, Class and Politics.
I have chossen to write about social
assistance in Norway and compare it with other European countries. Therefore
the title:
“A comparison of social assistance
in Norway with other European countries.”
The
reason for this choice is that I have worked with social services in Norway for
nearly twenty years and know this system relatively well as a practitioner. I
wanted to become more ingrossed in the more theoretical sides of social
assistance and try to put it in a larger context by comparing it with other
European countries. The essay is descriptive in form, and I have therefore not
written a conclusion in the end. My intention has more been to write a series
of reflections over social assistance, rather than draw a final conclusion.
It has been necessary for me to use
other literature than on the booklist from the course in order to write this
essay. I have tried to use Norwegian literature and put it in connection with
the booklist from the course. In a part of the essay I have used research done
by the Norwegian social scientist Ivar Lødemel (1992b, 1997), and tried to
connect his conclusions with those of Gøsta Esping-Andersen (1990, 2002). I
have also tried to take care of the gender perspective from the course, which
has been most usefull for me to view my social work practice and theory in a
new way.
1.1 Social assistance
My first
job as a newly qualified social worker was as executive officer in a Norwegian
social service department with about 35000 inhabitants in the community. When I
began working here in 1980, it was together with two other social workers and
one executive leader. This was sufficient to give help to those who needed
social assistance and there was also ample time to give help to those with
alcohol problems and those with child welfare needs.
Twenty years later, in 2000, the
same office had sixteen executive officers working with social assistance
applications, four others working with those with alcohol/drug problems,
sixteen were employed to work with child welfare needs in the community, and in
addition four employees working with refugees and those applying for political
asylum. There was still only one executive leader of this same office, but had
now forty employees instead of three. The population in the community was about
the same as in 1980.
In the last twenty years the number
of employees at this office had increased from three to forty. In addition to
this “explosive” development, we find that the jobs are more specialized, there
are many new professions and the office has tried many organizational changes.
The social service offices in Norway were not prepared for this rush of new
clients in the late 1980´s. Social service executive officers had to solve
crises that were caused by the lack of accessibility and accumulation of social
assistance applications (Thomassen, 1995).
Most social service offices have
today executive officers that work only with social assistance applications.
There is put special demands on the applicants. They should first of all be
“worthy needy” (i.e. in need of help in a way that is acceptable by the
community). There are put certain conditions to those receiving help, the
applications are treated on an estimate opinion and the use of social treatment
to “help” the applicants of social assistance is still of great importance.
Social assistance says in many ways something about attitudes in the society
towards individuals and families who want and/or need to be dependent upon
public benefits.
In this essay, I will place weight
on what is similar between social assistance in Norway and other European
countries and thereafter describe what is different. To be able to understand
why social assistance in Norway is so different from many other countries, I
will look closer on the development of poverty laws in different countries and
the development of National Insurance systems[1].
It is the historical background, which gives the social service office
objectivity as an institution. Institutions have always a history, which they
are a product of. An institutional world is therefore conceived as an objective
reality. But it is important to remember that social assistance offices, as all
other institutions, are “man-made” objectivities, constructed realities. The
institutional world can be understood as objective human activity, built by
people and changed by people (Berger and Luckman 1966, Latour 1987, Barnes,
Bloor and Henry 1996). This implys that institutions that we build can also be
changed, a change that is often needed in an ever changing society. Gail Lewis
(2000) says that the
“Changes over the past decade in the shape, practices
and modes of co-ordination of the welfare regimes, and the `racial´ and gender
formations which are both constituted by, and constitutive of it, suggest that
just a shift is ugently needed” (p. 17).
2.0 Placing social assistance on the agenda
There
are few comparative analysis of social assistance. There is written much about
National Insurance systems, but relatively little is written about social
assistance. Comparative studies on welfare have often not included social
assistance, but are mainly concerned with the National Insurance systems.
Social assistance has been looked upon as something less important. In quantity
it is also marginal in comparison to the National Insurance system.
The increasing focus on social
assistance in the last decade is mostly due to fact that the development
“exploded” so to speak in the 1980´s in most European countries. From 1980 to
1991 the amount of people receiving social assistance in Norway increased
three-fold, from 60000 to over 165000. The number of social assistance
applicants per one thousand inhabitants increased from fifteen in 1981 to
thirtynine in 1991. Measured in fixed prices, social assistance payments have
increased seven-fold, to three and one half billion Norwegian kroner in 1991
(Hjelmtveit 1993).
In Germany the number of people
receiving social assistance increased with two million from 1973 to 1990. In
1991 almost four million people received social assistance. The number that
received social assistance for their daily living increased with three hundred
per cent from 1973 to 1990. This is in 1990 equivalent to six per cent of the
whole population in Germany. Almost twenty-five per cent of the receivers of
social assistance in Germany were foreigners in 1991 (Stjernø 1995 a,b).
This development is due to several
factors. One factor is that unemployment leads young people, without the right
to unemployment benefits and unemployed that loose their benefit rights, to
social assistance. A second factor is that changes in family forms contribute
to an increased number of single parents that apply for help. A third factor is
that the way National Insurance is constructed has lead to a decrease in the
number of elderly people that need help, but also to the fact that constantly
more young people and single parents do not have the right to other benefits
than social assistance. Building down the National Insurance system leads to an
increase in the number of people that have to apply for social assistance
(Stjernø 1995 a,b).
The strong growth in use of social
assistance does not only reflect a growth in unemployment. It reflects also an
increase in social misery, broken homes and youth with a problematic childhood.
In the following I will discuss the situation for young long-termed unemployed
and single parents. Social assistance can in many ways be used as a “society
barometer” because it says something about the development in the societies in
the different countries. It does not only say something about who receives
social assistance, but also which attitudes prevail in the society towards
certain groups. Nancy Fracer (1994) comments about this when she writes about
the antipoverty principle under gender equality:
“The first and most obivous objective of
social-welfare provision is to prevent poverty. Preventing poverty is crucial
to achieving a gender equity now, after the family wage, given the high rates
of poverty in solo-mother families and the vastly increased likelihood that
U.S. women and children will live in such families. If it accomplishes nothing
else, a welfare state should at least relieve suffering by meeting otherwise
unmet basic needs. Arrangements, such as those in the United States, that leave
women, children, and men in poverty, are unacceptable to this criterion”
(p.596).
2.1 An increasing number of young people are long-termed unemployed.
The
unemployment rate among young people in Norway is considerably higher than in
the population in general. The unemployment was seventeen per cent in the age
group sixteen to nineteen years and eleven per cent in the age group twenty to
twenty-four in 1991 (Hove 1992).
Young people have to apply for
social assistance because they are not able to achieve a right to unemployment
benefits and do not have the same access as the elderly to rehabilitation and
disablement pensions. People without higher education dominate social
assistance statistics. Almost half of all twenty-four year olds with only
primary school received social assistance in 1994 (Stjernø 1995 a).
Those who are young and long-termed
unemployed were the big challenge in the 1990´s. This is a situation that is
the same all over Europe. In Spain the problem is even greater than in Norway
where over forty per cent of the young people are unemployed. These live for
the most part at home wwith their parents and receive a unemployment benefit
financed by the state. In Italy, among the unemployed 20-30 year olds, ninty
per cent depend totally on parental support (Esping-Andersen 2002). In Norway
on the other hand the young long-termed unemployed would most probably receive
social assistance from the community. This is because they have not developed
the right to unemployment benefits or that they have lost the right to
unemployment benefits just because they are long-termed unemployed.
The number of young people who
receive social assistance in Germany are on the same level as in Norway, but
the causes are different. There are probably two reasons for this. First there
is the principle of subsidizing, i.e. parents have the duty to help their
children economically also after that they come of age. The social assistance
law in Germany emphasizes that social assistance must be focused on the family.
It must stimulate the families ability to self-support and strengthen the
solidarity in the family. This implies that families with children and youth
more often receive social assistance than in Norway. In 1963 about one per cent
of all children and one per cent of all young people lived in households that
received social assistance. In 1989 the number has climbed to respectively six
per cent for children and four per cent for young peple. This is primarily due
to an increase in unemployment. Secondly, the apprentice system is well
developed and makes an easier transition between education and occupation
possible. Germany has to a greater extent than Norway succeeded in bringing
youth back into the labour marked. Even though unemployment also here has been
a problem, the transition between education and occupation has been easier.
This is foremost due to a well developed system with apprentice schools and
apprentice arrangements (Stjernø 1995 a,b).
2.2 The number of single parents are increasing.
Single
parents, especially single mothers have reached the top of the political agenda
in many western countries during the 1990s (Lewis and Hobson 1997). We see that
single parents have frequently poorer living conditions than other groups in
the population, and single mothers have poorer living conditions than single
fathers. Constantly more children grow up in families with just one
breadwinner, often single mothers, and these children are exposed to growing up
under harder times than others. This means that one considers children in this
group of the population in Norway as those with the weakest family economy
(Hovden 1995).
We see at the same time that demans
for what we call a good life is rising. In this way strong families are
harmfull for our well being, but at the same time they are threatened. This is what
Esping-Andersen (2002) calls a new paradox in our time in the welfare state. We
see clearly a polarization between income poor families and resource strong
families. Esping-Andersen is especially concerned with the situation that poor
children live under. The inter-play between parental and societal investments
in children’s development is crucial. In a life course perspective we see the
real importance of investing in the well-being and resources of children
(Esping- Andersen 2002).
In spite of the fact that over sixty
per cent of single parents receive benefits from the National Insurance system
in Norway, it is also this group that most often receives social assistance.
Full transition pension for single parents corresponds to the National Insurance
systems minimal pension. There are still relatively more single parents with
poor economy than amongst others that receive minimal pension rates. Relatively
few with retirement pension say that they have poor economy. In 1991 five per
cent of couples with children had problems with daily expenses and twelve per
cent were not able to pay a unforeseen bill. Amongst single parents, on the
other hand, twenty-five per cent had difficulties with daily expenses and
almost sixty per cent would not be able to pay an unforeseen bill (Dahl 1994).
The increase in number of single
parents has strongly contributed to the increase in social assistance (Von
Oorschot and Schell 1991). Twenty-three per cent of all single parents received
social assistance in Norway in 1990. Sweden had in the same year thirty-five
per cent of all single parents receiving social assistance. While in Germany
forty-two per cent of all single parents received social assistance. The reason
that so many single parents receive social assistance in Germany, is that there
is not a arrangement for transition pension for them, the way it is in Norway.
At the same time there is a high unemployment rate amongst women. The
combination of universalism and more generous pensions and the transition
pension for single parents, lead to the fact that fewer apply for social
assistance in Norway (and the other Nordic countries) than in the occupation
orientated pension system in Germany. The lower unemployment rate in Norway has
also played an important role (Stjernø 1995 a).
Single parents are a type of family that often are
poor and with a vulnerable economy in all the European countries, but it is
also a group, which is growing very quickly. In Norway the number of receivers
of expanded child pension increased with about fifty per cent from 1981 to
1992, from 69000 to 103200. This means that in every fifth Norwegian family
with children under the age of sixteen years, the father or mother was alone
with the daily care for the children (Rønning 1995). This development continues
and is an enormous international challenge. O’Connor, Orloff and Shaver (1999)
say that
“The US welfare state is often
excoriated as one inimical to the needs of women and their children. The
‘feminisation of poverty’ (meaning the high proportion of the poor who are
women or children in households maintained by women, and impling their high
rates of poverty) and the despised status of ‘welfare’ in politcal circles and
in popular culture have been invoked to illustrate the ways in which the United
States does not care for the poor, and for poor women and their children in
particular” (p. 3).
It
is not sure that child benefits alone are sufficient to eradicate poverty.
Denmark and Sweden provide unusally generous benefits, but for a mother with two
small children they amount to only twenty per cent of the average wage. In
Southern Europe single mothers have fewer labour market skills and experience
than in the Nordic countries, where we also find better earnings which help
single mothers get employment and therefore get over the poverty line[2]
(Esping-Andersen 2002).
3.0 Social
assistance in Norway
Economic
social assistance in Norway today is regulated by the law of social services
from January 1st 1993 and is a continuation of law of social care
from 1964. Social assistance has a long history in Norway with roots all the
way back to the laws of Gulating and Frostating (from before the year 1000) and
latter in the Magnus Lagabøters Landlaw from 1270. These laws gave a set of
rules where the family was considered a collective unity which insured mutual
benefits between generations. The mutual pension systems in the family built
therefore not only on a moral principle. There where legal obligations, which
the family members had not only within the nuclear family, parents and
children, but also within the collective family. In many parts of the world the
large family still is an economic community and the basis for economic safety
(Kluge 1979).
The main objective with social
assistance in Norway is to secure all inhabitants an economic security, but
shall at the same time be a subsidiary and temporary benefit. This means that
it is assumed that everyone uses all possible resources to take care of
oneself. Before social assistance is considered, it must therefore be made
evident if it is possible to get work for the applicant or if there are other
rights which can be made effective.
The rules for economic social
assistance in Norway are characterized by an optimistic rehabilitation and
treatment ideology (Terum 1993). Help shall primarily be given in order to make
the applicant self sufficient and independent of social assistance in the
future. The aim is in other words to solve the underlying social problems to
the individual or their families.
The intention is also that the law
should function as a social safety net that catch those who need help where
other helping arrangements are not sufficient. The law is also built on a
principle based upon individual considerations of individual clients or family
needs. Cooperation with clients is an important factor and help shall primarily
be given as an offer, not an order. It is also an intention in the law that
causes for the need for help shall not have any importance. When the
applicants´ situation is such that the conditions for giving help is present,
help shall without consideration of whether or not the applicant is “guilty” of
putting him-/herself in the situation that has come into being.
Law of social services build on the
principle of autonomy for the local authorities. Social assistance shall be a
municipal benefit and the local authorities must finance the help inside their
income frames. The local government stands free to choose for themselves which
level the help is to have, as long as the help satisfies the laws demands.
The guidelines are general and build
on considerations from case to case. There are therefore a large part of
opinion in back of social assistance. There are large variations in way
municipals use social assistance. Instead of a detailed frame of rules that
states what kind of need situations that release the right for help, the law
states principles for when economic help is important to give. The law demands
estimate considerations done by political chosen laymen, we see today that
social workers have been delegated power to take choices in most client cases.
We see therefore not only large variations between municipals, but also from
social worker to social worker in the same social assistance office (Lødemel
1992 a).
Many things seem to indicate that
the social assistance arrangement in Norway not only is about rules for whom
shall receive help or how much one may receive, but also how difficult it is to
achieve contact with the social assistance office. In the last decade social
assistance as a safety net has been weakened by a reduction in the rates for
social assistance, the rules for receiving social assistance has become
stiffer, the social assistance office has become less accessible and there is a
risk for increased stigmatising. Such signals can imply that there is a general
reduction in social assistance in Norway (Stjernø 1989).
4.0 Similarities
with other European countries.
Ivar
Lødemel (1992c) has in an article on social assistance compared the social
assistance arrangement in the European welfare states and come to the
conclusion that there are many similarities. A social assistance system which
should prevent poverty and create more income security was found in eight of
the twelve EU countries in 1992 (Belgium, Danmark, Germany, Ireland,
Luxembourg, Netherlands and England). In six other countries that in 1992 where
not members of EU but economic co-operating countries with EU was also found to
have such arrangements (Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Finland, Norway and
Sweden). In all these countries the state had a responsibility to give economic
help. Esping-Andersen (2002) says that welfare reforms have also succedded in
creating more income security, a less unequal distribution of income.
The
similarities within these countries are gathered in the following points:
-All social welfare must be
subsidiary. This means that there must be taken into
consideration which economical resources the applicant
has and that one must try other resorts for help before social assistance can
be given. This is called the subsidiary principle.
-The help is mostly universal, i.e.
that it applies to all that can not care of
themselves.
-Social assistance shall cover the
general expenses for daily living.
-There is often given room for
covering special needs as supplementary help.
-The help is usually time limited.
-The help is means-tested, i.e. that
there is done a consideration og individual
and family needs before giving help.
-In calculating economical support a
consideration is done about the applicants
own economy, savings, salary, pensions, etc. Social
assistance is subsidiary to the
applicants’ own resources.
-Social assistance is tax financed
and not insurance financed.
-The economical help is primarily
given as a contribution and only as an
exception as a loan.
-Applicants must, as a rule be
active in seeking employment.
-Most often it is required that the
applicant shall be reintegrated in the labour
marked and social life in general.
-There is often given supplementary
help from voluntary charity organisations
(Ivar
Lødemel 1992c).
5.0 Differences with other European countries
Even
though there are many similarities between Norwegian social assistance and many
other countries, there are also many differences. To be able to understand why
social assistance in Norway is so different from many other countries, it is
important to look closer to the development of Poor Laws in the various
countries and on the development of National Insurance arrangements. In addition
to different traditions for helping the poor and different developments of
social welfare systems, we also find different cultures between the countries
considering e.g. attitudes to individual responsibility and to the poor
(Lødemel 1992c). I will come back to the different explanation models after
first describing five main subjects that Lødemel (1992c) uses to divide the
social assistance arrangements between the different countries.
5.1 National arrangements
The
right to a guaranteed economic security net is a cornerstone for modern
European welfare states. Lødemel (1992c) says that there are fourteen European
countries that have a national arrangement that secures the individuals right
to a guaranteed economic security (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England, Finland,
France, Germany, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway,
Sweden and Switzerland). In countries like Spain and Italy there are great gaps
between the rich and the poor and in these countries there are not national
arrangements. In northern Italy, which is the richest part of the country,
there is a regional social assistance arrangement. A few other countries have
social assistance arrangements that apply only to special categories of the
population (Lødemel 1992c).
5.2 One or more subsidy arrangements
Germany
and Norway have a social assistance arrangement that is a general “all-round”
covering system. Other countries like e.g. France have a large general system
combined with many different arrangements that cover the “rest categories”.
England, Ireland and Belgium have developed a third way of doing this by having
many different supporting arrangements that cover the different categories and
that these arrangements together give a “all-round” covering system (Lødemel
1992c).
5.3 Rights- versus condition-orientated arrangements
Norway
has gone far in introducing conditions attached to social assistance. Many
European countries are about to follow this principle. Conditions for receiving
economic help can be that the applicant must sign an agreement that involves
that the applicant over a period of time (usually about six months) must
participate in a training program combined with individual consultation and
other social services which are supposed to correct the causes for the
different problems that the applicant has. This arrangement gives many
possibilities for sanctions. If the applicant does not hold his/her part of the
agreement, the economic help can be reduced or denied (Kjellevold 1995).
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany
and Sweden have also a similar condition-orientated social assistance
arrangement. Denmark has gone far by ordering the public services to give a
offer (e.g. work, education, training) and not just address demands on the
applicant.
The United States has also a
fundamental attitude, which says that if one is dependent on public benefits,
than one should work for them. The United States has developed an enormous
public apparatus for administrating “work for social assistance”, also called
“workfare” (Lødemel 2001). The arrangement is however so expensive to
administrate that the United States are now cutting down on this arrangement.
England has gone very far in the
opposite direction by making the arrangement rights-orientated. There are not
made any other demands on the applicants than to document that they are active
in seeking employment. Social assistance arrangements are separated from social
work practice and are administrated from special offices.
5.4 Level of legalisation
France
and Germany are those countries that are most detailed in their legislation.
They try to catch all the categories of different needs for help. The German
law for social assistance is e.g. over two hundred pages long, while the
Norwegian law is about twenty pages.
Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway
are those countries that are least detailed in the legislation. In the
Norwegian legislation the law of social services is a safety net that shall
catch all whom “fall outside”. This is contrary to the German legislation, and can
be described as an open system and gives room for estimated decisions. This
implies also that those who use their opinions to make estimated decisions are
given much power and the possibilities for complaining become less when
everything is clearly defined in the legislation. The legal framework in social
assistance law also becomes underestimated in administrative procedures because
the decisions are often given the applicant orally and there is given little
information about the applicants rights and administrative procedures (Molven
and Vetvik 1986).
5.5 Local or central responsibility
Norway
and England have both a central legislation, but England has also a central
administration and a central financing. Norway has on the other hand a local
administration and a local financing. Austria has a regional legislation, a
regional administration and a local financing. Germany has a central
legislation, a regional administration and a mixture of regional/local
financing. Spain has a regional legislation, administration and financing.
Italia has a local legislation, administration and financing. Netherlands has a
central legislation, a local administration and a local financing (Stjernø
1995b).
Steinar Stjernø (1995a) says that it
is to coarse to catch the differences in social assistance between countries
just by looking at the degree of centralisation or if social assistance main
content is social treatment or wage guarantee, the way Lødemel does.
Stjernø (1995a) will place the
countries according to nine dimensions that are attached to the care for the
poor. These dimensions are the level of local autonomy, national norms,
generosity, family subsidiary, possibilities for complaining, political
participation, voluntary participation, connection between contribution and
therapy and finally the connection between contribution and work. He states
that the most important differences are to be found in the connection between
central or local structure, generosity and legal insurance in the system and to
the connection between money and social treatment or work.
It can be maintained that the
classification to Stjernø is to extensive and that the different dimensions do
not let themselves compare with each other. How can one e.g. compare the
dimensions generosity and political participation to each other, or family
subsidiary and the connection between contribution and treatment? It will most
likely be difficult to compare such dimensions over country boundaries without
taking cultural considerations. Attitudes to political participation,
generosity, etc., are different form country to country because of cultural and
historical reasons and can not be simply compared with each other over country
boundaries.
Even if Stjernø can be right in that
the classification of Lødemel is to gross, it is a classification that makes it
possible to compare countries with each other on a gross scale, something I
find hard to do with the classification to Stjernø. It is too detailed,
unvaried and does not take into consideration the cultural differences in
understanding the nine dimensions. I will below therefore go further describing
the divisions that Lødemel (1992b) uses in his somewhat gross classification.
6.0 Four European traditions for social assistance
Poverty
and social exclusion is a increasing problem in all of Europe. More and more
are dependent on the public welfare system. Lødemel (1992b, 1997) starts with
an analysis of welfare states and divides comparative welfare research in three
main models:
A. Residual, industrial and institutional models for
welfare (Titmuss
1974).
Examples of this in Norway could be respectively the Poor Law of 1845,
supplemental pension from 1967 (pensions are calculated out from earlier labour
wages) and old age pension from 1957 (a universal arrangement). This model sets
focus on national experience.
B. Social divisions of welfare (Ginsburg 1992), where
three welfare
sources
are defined; private insurances, employers tax system (through different
deduction rules) and through national or other public arrangements. Also this
model focuses mostly on national arrangements.
C. Welfare regimes (Esping-Andersen 1990) focuses on how
one can
gather
together different countries with similar welfare traditions in clusters. It is
customary to see similarities between the Nordic welfare systems as a cluster
or welfare regime. This model treats many of the same topics as the two
previous, but focuses mainly on a comparison of different countries with other.
Esping-Andersen divides regimes into three welfare traditions. These are the
marked-liberal tradition, the conservative tradition and the social-democratic
(middle class universal) tradition. The division as Lødemel (1992b, 1997) has
made has many similarities with the welfare tradition to Esping-Andersen
(1990).
One of the main topics
Esping-Andersen (1990) is that there has been and still is a powerful movement
in society from wagework to “paid non-work”, through different kinds of welfare
arrangements. Esping-Andersen calls this for “decommodification[3]
of labour through welfare” (1990, p.35). Welfare arrangements are really the
same as National Insurance arrangements, but Lødemel (1992b, 1997) uses
Esping-Andersens´ model to describe what he calls poverty regimes (divisions)
and focuses in this way on the different social assistance traditions. He
divides between four different traditions in Europe. He has reached these
divisions by comparing the level of centralization (local versus central) and
social assistance main contents (social treatment versus maintaining wages) in
the different countries. The results are that the countries collect themselves
in four clusters out from similarities. Esping-Andersen (1998) insists that we
understand welfare states as clusters of regime-types, and that their
development must be explained interactively. We must also recognize that no
single case is pure. The social-democratic regimes of the Nordic countries are for example a blend
of crucial socialist and liberal elements.
6.1 The Nordic tradition
In
all of the Nordic countries social assistance is regulated through a national
“frame” legislation. The authority to make decisions is delegated to the local
administration. Sweden introduced national standards for social assistance in
1982, Finland in 1984 and Denmark in 1987. This gives the administration less
authority to make estimated decisions and strengthens the applicants’ lawful
rights. Norway introduced national standards for social assistance in 2000, but
here it is still up to the local governments to decide whether they choose to
follow these standards or not. Norway is the Nordic country that is most
cautious with benefits and shows the highest rate of variations in how the
applications are considered. Norway may be the country in Europe that to the
largest extent has kept the Poor Law as a helping arrangement for those who
need help because they have fallen outside the National Insurance system
(Lødemel 1992b, 1997).
The Nordic tradition builds on what
Esping-Andersen has called social-democratic or middle class universalism. This
tradition has developed the highest rate of “paid non-work” through the
National Insurance. Even though the Nordic countries have the best developed
pension systems in Europe, these countries have a social assistance, which
emphasizes a strong social control and treatment. The executive officers have a
double role to play, both bureaucrat and therapist. Lødemel (1992b, 1997)
describes therefore the Nordic countries as a residual poverty regime.
Lewis and Hobson (1997) say that the
current wave of feminist research has revealed the weakness of Esping-Andersen
(1990) references to “decommodification” in his study of welfare states, for
understanding gender differences and has proposed alternative framworks that
reveal gendered policy logics. In seeking a dimension of social citizenship
that goes beyond decommodification, feminist scholars have framed gendered
social rights around the category of single mothers, that is the right to form
an independent household without the risk of poverty and marginalisation.
Orloff (1993) has suggested that
“The decommodification dimension could be subsumed
under more a generic dimension measuring independence or autonomy, that is, it
would indicate individuals’ freedom from compulsion to enter potentially oppressive
relationships in a number of spheres” (p.320).
6.2 The Latin tradition
Lødemel
(1992b, 1997) describes only France as an example on the Latin tradition, but
means that France will serve as a model when other Latin countries develop
national arrangements for social assistance. France was the first Latin country
to have a central legislation for social assistance in 1988, with a fixed
national standard. Help is intended foremost for marginal groups in society and
it is a national objective to have control and give social treatment. It is
difficult to find common trends in the Latin countries because most of them
have newly begun to work with national arrangements. It might show that there
are large internal differences here, which make it difficult to group the Latin
countries in a rest-category. Esping-Andersen (1990) has not included these
countries in the European welfare regime. Lødemel (1992b, 1997) has chosen to
call the poverty regime in the Latin tradition for the national regime.
6.3 The Continental tradition
The
social assistance arrangement in Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Luxembourg and
Belgium have many common features. All of the countries have common social
assistance legislation and a number of benefit arrangements for specially
defined groups. These make together a unity helping-arrangement, and does not
function as different systems as they do in France.
In Germany the Poor Law was replaced
with a social assistance law already in 1962 and confirms that those who can
prove that their income is under a certain standard, have the right to social
assistance. The law is very detailed and is here different from e.g. the
Norwegian legislation. The law does not give much room for estimate
considerations. This implies that there are few educated social workers in the
social assistance officers with responsibility for social assistance
applications. This is taken care of by others in the administration. The
Continental tradition divides between
economic help and treatment due to the break with the Poor Law, while Norway
has kept this connection.
The Continental social assistance
arrangement is more rights orientated than both the Latin and Nordic
arrangement. But the arrangement also emphasizes a strong subsidiary principle.
All other possibilities must be tried before social assistance is given, and
the families’ responsibility to give help is very strong. This implies that
applicants must first seek help with their grandparents, parents, brothers and
sisters, children or other family members before the public gives economic
help.
The Continental tradition follows
what Esping-Andersen (1990) calls the conservative welfare regime, which has
its most important roots in the Bismarck tradition. Fürst von Bismarck (Otto
Eduard Leopold Bismarck Schönhausen) created the German Empire in 1871. In his
quest to stop the socialist advancement, he introduced a number of social
reforms, among other things; sickness pension, old age pension and insurance
against working accidents. The states responsibility is to help the factories
take the social responsibility for their employees. The conservative
Continental welfare regime is market orientated and has therefore a job based
understanding. The market is effective in a economical way to loose ones
employment has a much more discipline effect than in Norway. This implies that
the poor become “resourcefull”, because they show how it goes if you do not
work. This dividing understanding of poverty in society is why Lødemel (1992b,
1997) calls Esping-Andersens description of the conservative tradition on the
Continent for the differentiated poverty regime.
The conservative Continental
tradition is contrary from the Nordic tradition, “fatherly” in its
understanding of e.g. wage conditions. Wages are decided by social considerations
and not by competition circumstances. A man must have so much in wages so that
his wife can stay at home with their children. Most pension benefits, including
child pension, is paid to the man in the family.
Such attitudes in the society are
important in order to understand why social assistance arrangements are so
different from the Norwegian. Social assistance must be kept so small that it
is not possible to live on it alone. Social assistance for daily living
expenses make out just nineteen per cent of the average net industrial-worker
wage. Even if social assistance in Norway seems low, by seventy per cent of the
minimal benefit from the National Insurance, it is very generous compared to
the German social assistance (Stjernø 1995a).
6.4 The British tradition
The
Poor Law in England from 1834, which had replaced the previous Poor Law from
1601, was abolished in England already in 1948 and replaced by a national
organised and state financed social assistance arrangement (Lødemel 1992c). The
English Poor Law from 1834 (New Poor Law) had been an important starting point
for the development of social assistance in all of Europe. England is now the
first country that has most developed a standardizing of this form for help,
which is managed by offices for this purpose and is divided from social work
practice, also because of the social assistance reform from 1966. This reform
came due to an explosive development (a doubling in the first ten years after
WWII) of the number of old people and disabled who received social assistance,
a development, which was the other way round in Norway and many other parts of
Europe. In Norway we find that the number of social assistance applications was
halved from 1945 to 1965. Social assistance was before 1966 means-tested, but
made the arrangement completely rights-orientated. England is without a doubt
the country in Europe, which has the most rights-orientated and wage
maintaining social assistance arrangement.
Norway has chosen to develop slower
and more gradual than England. In Norway the National Insurance system became
rights-orientated and financed by the state through taxes. England has
developed an insurance-based pension system and made social assistance
rights-assistance orientated. Norway has seen more pragmatic on making social
assistance rights orientated and instead chosen to develop a pension system
that is universal. It is the pension system that defines the quantity of
clients and who that can be clients. It is these two factors that also has contributed
to factors that also has contributed to make a foundation for social
assistance. In Norway there is e.g. very few elderly who receive supplementary
social assistance because the pension level should be sufficient for daily
living. There are however very many single parents that are not able to live on
pensions alone and receive supplementary social assistance. This can mean that
the most important activity one can do to get this group away from social
assistance arrangements is to increase vigorously the benefits from the pension
arrangements for this group.
Esping-Andersen (1990) describes the
British traditions as characterized by a marked-liberal tradition. This implies
that work is seen as a product and that wages should be created through supply
and demand. Public pension arrangements therefore become “dangerous”. The
reason for social politics become moral questions because they are pointed to
increasing the supply of work through just offering an alternative support to
those that can not work. People who unwillingly and undeserved do not get work
shall receive social assistance (before called help to the poor). This social
policy has roots in the Beveridge plan from 1942. It was this British
economist, liberal politician and director at the London School of Economics,
William Henry Beveridge who got approval
for his proposals for extensive pension reforms which to a large degree has
influenced later social legislation. The arrangement builds upon pensions that
shall be based on the insurance principle. Everyone should pay the same and
receive the same. This is also called “The Flat Rate Principle”. The thought in
back of this was that “a convoy can never go faster than its slowest ship”, or
put in a more marked-liberal way, a society can not develop faster than the
poor can be able to pay their share. This made it possible for private
insurance companies to be able to come with offers to those that could pay for
private insurance arrangement (Lødemel 1992b, 1997).
The benefits from social assistance
in England is so low that it is not possible to make a daily living of it. It
is to be a weapon against poverty, but has not been able to secure welfare to
the receivers. This last element is entrusted to the insurance marked. Lødemel
(1992b) describes therefore the British tradition as the institutionalised
poverty regime. Zsuzsa Ferge (1997) says that
“The dream of the ‘good society’ – the ambitious plan
of Beveridge, the ideal welfare state – never fully materialized. Instead there
have been different types of ‘welfare states’… attaining varing degrees of
success in the pursuit of such grand objectives as the eradication of poverty
of the redustion of inequality” (p. 21).
The
different developments of pension arrangements in England and Norway is one of
the main reasons that the social assistance arrangements are so different. When
the pension system failed in England, the social assistance system was built
and made rights orientated and opened the pension marked for pension companies.
In Norway the development of pension arrangements are very successful and left
behind a social assistance system for the poorest in the society that fall
outside the National Insurance system. The arrangement is administrated and
financed by local authorities who can choose if they want to fallow a national
recommended to regulate level for social assistance. The social services law
gives the executive officer much power to make estimate decisions and therefore
puts the legal rights to the applicants in danger. In many ways it is correct
to say that Norwegian social assistance, compared with other welfare states, is
the arrangement that to largest degree has preserved the poverty ideology which
characterizes the Poor Laws in the 1800´s and which all the other European countries
has abolished after WWII.
7.0 Summary
This
essay has focused on describing social assistance in Norway and compared it
with other European countries. As a social worker I have experienced how social
assistance has “exploded” in the last two decades. I have looked at two
probable causes for this development, the increasing number of young people
that are unemployed and the increasing number of singel parents. In comparing
social assistance in Norway with other European countries, I have used research
done by the Norwegian social scientist Ivar Lødemel together with the research
done by Gösta Esping-Andersen. My reflections show that social assistance in
Norway is perhaps the arrangement that to the largest degree has perserved the
poverty ideology from the Poor Laws.
Kaare T. Pettersen 2003
8.0 Literature
Barnes,
Barry, David Bloor and John Henry, 1996. Scientific Knowledge. A
Sociological Analysis). London: Athlone.
Berger,
Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann, 1966. The Social Construction of
Reality.
New York: Anchor.
Dahl, Grete, 1994. Inntekt,
levekår og sysselsetting for pensjonister og
stønadsmottakere
i folketrygden. (Wages,
Living Conditions and Employment for Recievers of Pensions and Benefits from
the National Insurance). Oslo: Statistisk Sentralbyrå, nr.8/1994.
De Swaan, Abram, 1988. In Care of the Welfare State. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Eskeland, Ståle (red.). Hvor
gikk sosialomsorgen? (Where has
Social Welfare
Gone to?).
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Esping-Andersen, Gösta, 1990. The Three Worlds of Capitalism. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Esping-Andersen, Gösta, 1998. The Three Political Economies of the Welfare
State in O’Connor, Julia and Gregg Olsen, Power
Resources Theory and the Welfare State. A Critical Approach. University of
Torono Press.
Esping-Andersen,
Gösta, 1999. The Household Economy in Sosicl Foundations
of Post-Industrial Economies. Oxford University Press.
Esping-Andersen, Gösta, 2002. Why we need a New Welfare State. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Ferge, Zsuzsa, 1997. The Changed Welfare Paradigme: The Individualization of
The Social in Social Policy and Administration vol
31. no 1, march 1997 pp.20-44.
Ferge,
Zsuzsa and Jon Eivind Kolberg (red.), 1992. Social Policy in a Changing
World.
Colorado: Westview Press.
Fraser, Nancy, 1994. After the Family Wage: Gender Equity and the Welfare
State in Political Theory. An International Journal
of Political Philosophy.Vol 22 no 4 November 1994 pp.591-618.
Ginsburg,
Norman, 1992. Divisions of Welfare. London: SAGE.
Gough,
Ian. 1979. The Political Economy of the Welfare State. Critical Texts in
Social Work and the Welfare State. London: The Macmillan Press.
Hagen, Kåre
and Jon Mathias Hippe, 1993. The Norwegian Welfare State: From
Post-War
Consensus to Future Conflicts? In Keil, Ann Cohen and Astrid Torud (red.) Continuity
and Change. Aspects of Contemporary Norway. Oslo: Univeritetsforlaget.
Hippe, Jon
Matias, 1988. Spillet om velferdsstaten. (Playing
for the Welfare
State).
Oslo: FAFO rapport nr.83.
Hjelmtveit,
Vidar, 1993. Økonomisk sosialhjelp. (Economic sosial
assistance),
In Halvorsen, Knut (red.) Sosialpolitisk Årbok 1993 (Social
Political Yearbook 1993). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Hokenstad,
M.C. (red.). 1992. Profiles
in International Social Work.
Washington
D.C.: NASW Press.
Hovden,
Kjersti, 1995. Alene i fellesskapet: Om ensomhet i velferdsstaten
(Alone
in togetherness: About being lonely in the Welfare State). In Lingås, Lars Gunnar (red.), Myten om velferdsstaten – 25 år etter
(The myth called the Welfare State – 25 years later). Oslo: PAX.
Hove,
Olav, 1992. ”Lite hjelp å få…” (”Not much help to get…”).
Oslo: NKSH
rapport
7/1992.
Kjellevold,
Alice, 1995. Sosialhjelp på vilkår (Social
Assistance on Conditions).
Oslo: Juridisk Forlag.
Kluge,
Liv, 1979. Sosialhjelp før og nå (Social assistance, before and now).
Oslo:
Fabritius.
Latour,
Bruno, 1987. Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers
through
society.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lewis,
Gail, 2000. Introduction in Race, Gender, Social Welfare. Encounters in
a
Postcolonial Society. Polity Press.
Lewis, Jane
and Barbara Hobson, 1997. Introduction in Lone Mothers in
European
Welfare Regimes: Shifting Policy Logics. Jessica
Kingsley
Publishers.
Lødemel,
Ivar, 1990. Citizenship in the Division of Welfare. FAFO paper
presented
at the “Third International Conference of BIEN (Economic
Democracy
and Citizenship Income”, Florence. September 19-22 1990.
Lødemel,
Ivar, 1992a. Sosialhjelpa i europeisk inntektssikring
(Social
Assistance
as Wage-security in Europe). Oslo: Sosiologi idag (Sociology Today), nr.2/1992,
pp.57-72.
Lødemel,
Ivar, 1992b. European Poverty Regimes, FAFO
paper for presentation
at
The International Research Conference on Poverty and Distribution, Oslo,
November 16-17 1992.
Lødemel,
Ivar and Bernd Schulte, 1992c. Social Assictance – A part of social
security
or the Poor Law in disquise? Paper presented at the
International Conference on Social Security at the University of York, England,
September 27-30 1992.
Lødemel,
Ivar, 1997. The Welfare Paradox. Income Maintenance and Personal
Social
Services in Norway and Britain, 1946-1966. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Lødemel,
Ivar, 2001. “An offer you can’t refuse”. Workfare in international
perspective.
London: Polity Press.
Molven,
Olav and Einar Vetvik, 1986. Saksbehandling i kommunal
forvaltning (Case-
treatment
in the Muncipal Bureacracy). Oslo: Diakonhjemmets
Sosialhøgskole.
Forskningsrapport nr.18/1986.
O’Connor,
Julia S., Ann Shola Orloff and Sheial Shaver, 1999. States, Markets,
Families.
Gender, Liberalism and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and
the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Orloff, Ann
Shola, 1993. Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The
Comparative
Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States, in American Sociological
Review 1993, vol 58 June pp. 303-328.
Rose,
Richard and Rei Shiratori, 1986. The Welfare State. East and West. New
York:
Oxford University Press.
Rønning,
Rolf, 1995. Sosialpolitikk i Norge. Helse, trygd og omsorg. (Social
Politics
in
Norway. Health, benefits and care). Oslo: TANO
Stjernø,
Steinar, 1989. Fattigdom og fattighjelpen – ved et vendepunkt? (Poverty
and
the
Poor Law – a need for change?) in Lingås, Lars Gunnar (red.), Myten om
Velferdsstaten – 20 år etter (The Myth of the Welfare State – 20 years
later). Oslo: Pax.
Stjernø, Steinar, 1995a. Mellom
kirke og kapital (Between Church and Money). Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Stjernø, Steinar, 1995b. Velferdsstat og sosialpolitikk i Tyskland (The Welfare
State and Social Politics in Germany), The College of
Oslo rapport nr.1/1995.
Syltevik, Liv and Kari Wærness,
1991. Alenemødre med sosialhjelp i et tjue års
perspektiv (Single mothers with social assistance over the last twenty
years). Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning
(Journal for Social Rearch)
nr.6/1991,
p.501-514.
Terum, Lars Inge, 1993. Penger
eller behandling? (Money or treatment?) in Eskeland,
Ståle
(red.), Hvor gikk sosialomsorgen? (Where did Social Welfare go?). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Titmus,
Richard, 1974. Social Policy. London: Allen and Unwin.
Thomassen,
Åse, 1995. Sosialkontoret i endring. Nye strukturer og
yrkesroller. (The
Social Assistance Office is Changing. New Structures
and Occupations). Oslo: Vidarforlaget.
Van
Oorschot, Wim and John Schell, 1991. Means-Testing in Europe: A
Growing Concern. In Adler, Michael (red.), 1991, The
Sociology of Social Security. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[1] There are different ways of
translating the Norwegian word ”trygd”. In England one speaks of e.g. that an
employee is entitled to unemployment benefits, or that mothers can
receive children´s allowance, the unemployed will maybe say that it´s no
fun being on the dole, or that someone has been on welfare for
many years. In the United States one calls national benefit arrangements for social
security and this system is in England called National Insurance. I
will in this essay use the British word National Insurance as a
translation for the Norwegian national “trygde” system.
[2] The poverty line is often
understood as fifty per cent of medial wage. EU has recently moved the poverty
line to sixty per cent of medial wage (Esping-Andersen 2002). There are also
many other ways of describing poverty, which shows that understanding poverty
is a question about values, but this is a discussion not taken in this essay.
[3] Esping-Andersen (1990) says that
“de-commodification occurs when a service is rendered as a matter of right, and
when a person can maintain a livelihood without reliance on the market” (pp.
21-22). Orloff (1993) argues that
“decommodification” inaccurately describes women’s relationship to the welfare
state. Esping-Andersen (1999) says this is because women’s work is often unpaid
family labour.
Thankyou for your kind comment Robert. Yes I´ll be patient :-) Kaare
ReplyDelete