Download This essay will focus on the interplay between the political system

This essay will focus on the interplay between the political system and the labour market, in
particular the Swedish system of welfare in terms of its conceptual representation. This system is an
institutional part of Swedish society and represents a major part of its efforts to generate a social
model that would be morally as well as economically successful; an example for the rest of Europe
and beyond (Bryson 1992, p 6; Economist, 2006). Indeed, Scandinavia as a whole is usually looked
at as being a representative of uniquely progressive attitudes towards welfare, and as such the
Nordic countries are often under increased scrutiny by political scientists and other observers
(Bryson 1992, p 6; Miles 1997, p 5, 15, 76). Sweden is described as being “one of Europe's most
stable, industrialised and affluent countries” (Miles 1997, p 5), and this can be seen as the most
common image construction of outside cultures when considering the country.
It is in its approach to the labour market and welfare system that Sweden most strongly
distinguishes its own 'third way', its choice of middle ground between the traditional left- or rightwing politics (Almqvist & Glans 2004, p 11, 21-2; Miles 1997, p 7, 26-7). This social model,
described as “capitalism tempered by a generous and interventionist welfare state” (Economist,
2006), combines a sense of idealism with a strong economy to produce a system which is generally
regarded as being capable of supporting the generosity of the welfare that it provides; although a
population that is both ageing and growing in number may present challenges in the future. Some
political and sociological observers regard Swedens concept of its 'special path' as being no more
valid than any other countries claim to be 'unique' (Ryner 2007). Torstendahl (2004, p 46) writes
that “the social democratic special path is a social democratic article of faith, not a hypothesis that
has been tested in different perspectives and been found to pass such investigations”. To put it more
bluntly, he writes “Only Sweden has Swedish gooseberries. But all gooseberries are gooseberries”
(Torstendahl 2004, p 46). In addition to analysing these aspects of the 'Swedish model', an
examination of Australian welfare policies will provide an overview of a different political culture,
providing an idea of where the Swedish system approaches issues differently and where the two
approaches have similarities.
Sweden is usually referred to as being a 'welfare state', with the welfare system both held up as an
example of the country's commitment to equality and derided as an expensive 'free ride' for those
who could otherwise be gainfully employed (Bryson 1992, p 60). For many outside observers, this
is one of the most interesting elements of the Swedish socio-political approach; the idea of the
'Swedish model' of government as responsible for the well-being of its citizens, generally focusing
on those that struggle economically.
The concept of the 'Welfare State' is one that is familiar to the jargon of most political disciplines.
One interpretation of this term is as referring to the way that the state provides assistance to its
citizens in the spheres of finance, education and health care, amongst others. This interpretation is
more closely linked to the details of the welfare application, meaning the way that the benefits
distributed by the government reaches the beneficiaries, and exactly what aspects of the citizens
lives are subsidised through government policy. Another interpretation is more holistic, regarding
the term 'welfare state' as being a reference to the way that the welfare system is integral to the
politics of the country; to clarify, Sweden is a 'welfare state' by this definition because support of its
citizens through government subsidy is a major part of its concept of an ideal government.
One criticism of the 'welfare state' that is frequently brought up is the idea that by providing
financial assistance for the unemployed, impoverished or those otherwise struggling economically,
the government fosters a culture of subsidy reliance. This concept supposedly affects particularly
those areas where welfare recipients are concentrated in large numbers, with the economic
depression of the area frequently leading those residents eligible for employment to regard welfare
as being the main means of livelihood rather than government assistance, designed to fill the gap
between the individuals income and the individuals ability to fulfil their needs. This usually falls
into the need to distinguish between 'universal' and 'selective' welfare; those elements of welfare
that are 'universal' are applied, as the name suggests, “available to everyone, regardless of their
personal circumstances” (Bryson 1992, p 59). A 'selective' welfare service provides benefits to
those who fall within its particular criteria “be it membership of an age category...or having
children...or, as with certain fiscal benefits, whether one has a business of a certain type” (Bryson
1992, p 59). Selective services, in short, “take into account the particular circumstances of the
individual” (Bryson 1992, p 59). The debate between these two levels of provided welfare “has
been a fundamental debate in discourses on social policy” (Bryson 1992, p 59) for many years,
frequently becoming a debatable issue for both the general public as well as academics and political
scientists.
One of the major protests against the 'universal' ideal of welfare is that recipients may abuse the
system, taking advantage of the government subsidies which are generally provided primarily by
the taxes of those who are not receiving the benefits (Bryson 1992, p 63; Torstendahl 2004, p 42).
Restrictions and controls are needed to prevent the over-extension of the subsidies, and to ensure
both that it is those who are in need who are receiving, and that those receiving are those in need
(Bryson 1992, p 60). An issue which is raised by the 'selective' approach to welfare is that of
stigmatisation; the idea that by coming forward to accept the government subsidies, welfare
recipients will identify themselves as being receivers of charity, and therefore looked down upon.
As Bryson (1992, p 61) writes, “old attitudes about the undeserving poor die hard”. A negative
attitude may be created towards both those receiving the assistance and the assistance itself, one
which is certainly propounded by certain sections of Australian society (Bryson 1992, p 61).
Commonly a recipient of the Australian work seekers allowance ('dole') is referred to as a 'dole
bludger', supposedly accepting the government 'handout' rather than actually seeking employment.
This attitude towards the unemployed is rife within Australian society, usually the middle and upper
classes, and frequently finds its way into political rhetoric. Bryson (1992, p 227) describes Margaret
Thatcher describing Britain as a 'nanny state' “[invoking] images of dependant, pampered citizens”.
Again, the idea of the 'undeserving poor' appears to be almost universal amongst developed
countries. Ensuring that appropriate welfare benefits go to those who deserve them, without
exploitation or over-restrictive selectivity, is one of the major difficulties when considering the
efficacy of a welfare state; it is a problem which is unlikely to be settled conclusively or simply.
One point raised here is that this approach to welfare requires a degree of philanthropy from those
who pay the taxes required to support the system, but do not directly receive the benefits. Often the
idea of the 'undeserving poor' is espoused by just this demographic, and it is easy to see why they
would be frustrated. It is the support of the middle class, however, that the welfare state typically
relies on the most; providing a point of dissent, most likely the cause of the stigmatisation of
welfare recipients as being undeserving, or 'dole bludgers' (Bryson 1992, p 63, 98, 129). In
Australia, this support is often not forthcoming; the high selectivity of the welfare initiatives that
exist mean that they are less widely used, and therefore less widely supported (Bryson 1992, p 98).
This has resulted in what Bryson (1992, p 98) as a “precarious social welfare system”. The two
major parties have a disturbing tendency towards dismantling, or at best restructuring, social
welfare systems that the other party has instituted (Bryson 1992, p 94). Traditionally it has been the
left-wing Labor party that has been behind progressive welfare policy, and the more conservative
Liberal Party who has dismantled or restructured, usually in the name of economic rationalism
(Bryson 1992, p 94). This inability of the two major parties to agree has resulted in the Australian
welfare system becoming one which is often reversible – not necessarily a bad thing, but it also
makes beneficial changes vulnerable (Bryson 1992, p 94).
Another, Sweden-specific issue is the concept of non-citizens becoming recipients of welfare.
Social benefits are made available to all residents, regardless of whether they are Swedish citizens
(Bryson 1992, p 115). In addition to the idea of the 'undeserving poor', this can raise issues of
nationalism and xenophobia – the idea of Swedish tax dollars supporting those who are 'not even
citizens' can rankle with many taxpayers.
Using the conceptual representation of the Swedish Welfare system as a focus, it can be seen that
while the 'Swedish model' is forward thinking, and holds to a certain degree of idealistic equality,
the 'middle way' is not without its flaws. It is probably the ideals rather than the system itself which
is most strongly ingrained in Swedish society, and it is for this reason that the model espoused by
Sweden is held as an example in equality for other developed countries. Enjoying success in both its
social and economic application, this attitude towards social welfare can be seen as progressive; it
also relies heavily on a status quo of some philanthropy from the middle class and a lack of subsidy
'abuse'. Many factors which are coming to the fore in industrialised, developed countries around the
world also bring increasing pressure on the welfare state; immigration, for one, or the shifts in the
attitudes of the voters themselves. One of the most common attitudes when regarding Sweden is
that it represents an ideal which other countries, in Europe and beyond, could learn from in terms of
the way it treats its citizens. In practice, while this system naturally has its weaknesses, the 'Swedish
model' provides a model for social equality which is unique – for a given value of unique.
References
Almqvist, K & Glans, K (eds.) 2004, The Swedish success story? Preses Nams, Riga

Torstendahl, R 2004 'Sweden in a European Perspective'
Bryson, L 1992, Welfare and the State – Who Benefits? Macmillan Press LTD, London
Miles, L 1997, Sweden and European Integration Ashgate Publishing, Vermont
Ryner, J 2007, 'The Nordic Model: Does it Exist? Can it Survive?', New Political Economy, no. 12,
Vol. 1, 1 March, p 61-70. Accessed 17 May. ProQuest document ID: 1249108041
<http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1249108041&Fmt=18&clientId=20906&RQT=309&VNam
e=PQD>
The Economist, Sep 7th 2006, 'The Swedish Model: Admire the Best, Forget the Rest', viewed 19th
May <http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7880173#login>