1

The Nordic Welfare State and

Social Cohesion

Christian Albrekt Larsen

Professor, Centre for Comparative Welfare Studies (www.CCWS.dk),

Aalborg University, Denmark

A question for you (Discuss with the person next to you):

Do you think the bonds that keep the Chinese people

together have increased or decreased within the

last twenty years?

2

Disposition:

• 1: Social development and the welfare state

• 2: Why is social trust so important?

• 3: How did social trust decrease in US/UK?

• 4: How did social trust increase in DK/SW?

• 5: The importance of social constructions

• 6: Competing theories

• 7: The challenge from increased ethnic diversity

3

1: Social development and the

welfare state:• Pressure:

– Modernisation (Durkheim), Capitalism (Marx)

• The welfare state as a response:

– T.H. Marshall (citizenship)

– Esping-Andersen (de-commodification)

- Rothstein: Social capital / trust

4

The classic trust question:

Generally speaking, would you say that most people

can be trusted or that you need to be careful in dealing

with other people?

1.Most people can be trusted.

2.Need to be very careful

5

Share answering ”most people can be trusted”.

World Value Survey 2005Titel

UndertitelS

The new trust question:

I’d like to ask you how much trust you trust people

from various groups…

People you meet for the first time:

1: Trust completely

2: Trust somewhat

3: Do not trust very much

4: Do not trust at all

7

8Share that trust persons they meet for the first time

(World Value Survey 2005)

v. titel

Navn

Why is trust in strangers so

important for Society?

(Please discuss with the person next to you)

9

10 1959-

60 WVS 1981-

84

WVS 1990-

93

WVS 1994-

99

WVS 1999-

04

WVS 2005-

08

Trend (earliest – latest) Regi

me

Norway - 61 65 65 - - +4 S Sweden - 58 66 60 66 68 +10 S Finland 573 63 49 57 59 +2 S Denmark - 53 58 - 67 76 +23 S Canada - 49 53 37 - - 12 L Australia - 48 - 40 - 48 0 L The Netherlands - 45 54 60 45 0 C/S N. Ireland - 44 44 40 - -4 - UK 562 43 44 30 29 30 -26 L Japan 42 42 42 43 39 -3 US 551 41 51 36 36 40 -15 L Ireland - 41 47 36 - -5 - Iceland - 40 44 - 41 +1 - South Korea - 38 34 30 27 30 -8 - Spain - 35 34 30 36 20 -15 C Russia - 353 38 24 24 27 -8 - Hungary - 34 25 23 22 - -12 - Germany (west) - 32 38 42 32 41 +9 C South Africa - 313 28 18 12 18 -13 - Belgium - 29 34 - 29 - 0 C Italy - 27 36 - 33 29 +2 C Argentina - 26 23 18 16 17 -9 - France - 25 23 21 19 -6 C Mexico - 183 34 31 22 16 -2 - Malta 10 24 - 21 - +11

Figure 1.1 Share answering that most people can be trust. Sweden, Denmark, UK, and US

Source: 1981- 2008 World Value Survey, UK 1959, Hall (1999:432); US 1960, Putnam (2000:140)

12Figure 3.3. Income inequality in the US, UK, Sweden and Denmark (disposable equalised income after taxes and benefits). Comparable LIS data

13 Figure 3.4. Poverty rates (percent below 50 percent of median income, disposable equalised) in the US, UK, Sweden and Denmark

Why do you think equality influence trust

in unknown fellow citizens

(Please discuss with the person next to you)

16

Figure X.X. Self-placement in ten categories (1 = “top of society”; 10 = “bottom of society”). Percentage using each brackets in USA (2000), Sweden, Denmark and UK (2009).

US UK Sweden Denmark

1 ’Top’ 3 0 1 1

2 3 2 1 2

3 10 5 10 10

4 16 11 23 19

5 31 32 29 31

6 17 19 21 22

7 10 14 8 8

8 6 10 5 5

9 2 4 1 2

10 ’Bottom’ 2 3 1 2

N (100 %) 1120 936 1125 1498

Mean 5.1 5.8 5.1 5.2

Standard deviation

1.8 1.7 1.5 1.6

Note: Wording: In our society there are groups which tend to be towards the top and those that are towards the bottom. Here we have a scale that runs from top to bottom. Where would you put yourself on this scale? Note: Don’t know excluded

Table X.X: Public perceptions of the actual society. US, UK, Sweden and Denmark

Type A

A small elite at the top, very few

people in the middle and the great mass of people at the

bottom

Type B

A society like a pyramid with a small elite at the top, more people in the middle, and most at the

bottom

Type C

A pyramid except that just a few people are

at the bottom

Type D

A society with most people in the middle.

Type E

Many people near the top, and only a

few near the bottom.

N (100 %)

USA 17 32 19 29 3 1124 UK 16 42 19 20 4 1848 SW 7 23 30 38 2 1078 DK 2 11 26 59 4 1442 Source: USA GSS 2000, UK BSA 2009, DK ISSP 2009, SW ISSP 2009 Note: Don’t know answer excluded.

Figure X.X. Perception of society type and trust levels (US 2000; UK, SW and DK 2009)

,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

TYPE A TYPE B TYPE C TYPE D TYPE E

US

UK

SW

DK

Note: Don’t know responses excluded N: US = 697, UK = 860, SW = 1036, DK = 1375 Chi-square: US 28.2**, UK 29.2**, SW 31.1**, DK 36.0**

21

• De-industrialisation (’marxist’ thinking)

• De-familization (’conservative’ thinking)

• De-nationalization (’nationalistic thinking)

• De-mobilization of civil society (communitarian thinking))

) -Competing theories

De-industrialization

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

Sh

are

of

ma

le in

du

stri

al w

ork

ers

am

on

g 1

6 -

64

ye

ars

old

Danmark

Sverige

Storbritanien

USA

Kilde: OECD.STAT

Figure X.X. Marriage rates (marriage by 1000 inhabitants) in US, UK, Sweden and Denmark

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1945

1949

1953

1957

1961

1965

1969

1973

1977

1981

1985

1989

1993

1997

2001

2005

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Sweden

UK

Denmark

USA

Figure X.X: Divorce rates (divorces by 1000 inhabitants) in US, UK, Sweden and Denmark

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1945

1949

1953

1957

1961

1965

1969

1973

1977

1981

1985

1989

1993

1997

2001

2005

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Sweden

UK

Denmark

USA

Source: Sweden, UK and Denmark: Own calculations based on online database from Statistic Sweden and Denmark.

US: Taken from census report (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf)

Figure X.X. Percentage of children (0 – 17) living in single mother households

0

5

10

15

20

25

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Denmark

Sweden

UK

US

Source: Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), main indicators.

Figure X.X. Foreign born (aged 15 or more) around 2000 in percent of total population. Distributed by region of origin

0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12

Denmark

Sweden

UnitedKingdom

United States

Africa

Asia

Europe

North America

Oceania

South and Central America andCaribbean

Source: Own calculations based on OECD.stat. Database on immigration in OECD countries

The challenge from increased

ethnic diversity:

29

Experimental evidence -BASIS

Figure 11.2. Share indicating trust in most people across treatment groups. Standard measure (1 = trust) (0 = mistrust or do not know).

Figure 11.4. The experimental effect across students from mixed and non-mixed schools. Share indicating trust on standard measure (1 = trust) (0 = mistrust or do not know).

THE SCHOOL EXPERIMENT

References

• Larsen, C. A. (2011). ”Ethnic Heterogeneity and Public Support for Welfare: Is the

American Experience Replicated in Britain, Sweden and Denmark?”, Scandinavian

Political Studies

• Larsen, C. A. & T. Dejgaard (forthcoming), ”The Institutional Logic of Images of the

Poor and Welfare Recipients A Comparative Study of British, Swedish and Danish

Newspapers, Journal of European Social Policy

• Larsen, C. A. (2013). The Rise and Fall of Social Cohesion. The Construction and

De-construction of Social Trust in the US, UK, Sweden and Denmark. Oxford

University Press