To the Minister and Head of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs
In February 4th 1999 the Swedish Government authorised Lars Engqvist, the Minister of Health and Social Affairs, to set up a commission of researchers to review welfare development in Sweden during the 1990s (dir 1999:07). The commission later took the name ”A Balance Sheet for Welfare of the 1990s (Kommittén Välfärdsbokslut).
The Chairman of the commission is Associate Professor Joakim Palme and the members of the commission are Associate Professor Åke Bergmark, Associate Professor Johan Fritzell, Associate Professor Olle Lundberg, Acting Professor Elisabet Näsman, Associate Professor Lena Sommestad and Associate Professor Marta Szebehely. The secretaries are Martin Hörnqvist and Anna Öström.
In its references (dir 1999: 7) to the commission ”A Balance Sheet for Welfare of the 1990s” the Swedish Government stated that in drawing its conclusions about Swedish welfare development, the commission should make comparisons with other countries, and in particular with countries in which we can trace a similar development, and in which there is a sufficient availability of comparative material. This makes Finland a natural first candidate for such comparisons. Finland and Sweden do indeed share a number of attributes both with regard to general characteristics and recent developments. As for recent changes one can in particular note that no other countries in Western Europe underwent such severe economic problems and rapid increases in unemployment in the early 1990s. Given this background a comprehensive comparison between Finland and Sweden was put at the top of our agenda. In order to make such a task feasible with short notice and during a short period of time, we needed a researcher with excellent knowledge on both
This report points to both similarities and differences between the two neighbouring countries and is definitely able to cast a new light on how we understand development in Sweden. It is our hope and belief that the report will provide its readers with new insights and perspectives on the welfare development in Finland and Sweden over the recent decade. The members of the commission have not taken up a position on the content of the report. All analyses, interpretations, and conclusions are those of the author.
Stockholm in October 2000
|Åke Bergmark||Elisabet Näsman|
|Johan Fritzell||Lena Sommestad|
|Olle Lundberg||Marta Szebehely|
|/Martin Hörnqvist||/Anna Öström|
List of Contents
|1 Introduction ............................................................................................||7|
|1.1 The ”Nordic model” and Finland and Sweden as ”two of a|
|1.2 Working hypothesis on welfare state development in Finland|
|and Sweden ................................................................................||12|
|1.3||Design of the report....................................................................||13|
|2 The economic crisis of the 1990s .........................................................||17|
|2.2||Developments in unemployment and employment....................||20|
|2.3||Anatomy of the crisis .................................................................||23|
|2.4||Balance sheet for the 1990s crisis in Finland and Sweden ........||29|
|3 Balancing of public budgets ................................................................||31|
|3.1||Problems in public finances .......................................................||32|
|3.2||Public expenditures and revenues ..............................................||35|
|3.3||Balance sheet on budget consolidation in Finland and Sweden 44|
|4 Adaptation in social policy...................................................................||47|
|4.1||Social protection expenditure.....................................................||48|
|4.2||Premises for service provision ...................................................||49|
|4.3||Case 1: Adjustments in income transfers ...................................||51|
|4.4||Case 2: Adaptation in elderly care .............................................||59|
|4.5||Case 3: Adaptation in child
|4.6||Case 4: Adaptation in active labour market policies..................||77|
|5 Economic welfare .................................................................................||83|
|5.1||The distribution of unemployment.............................................||83|
|5.2||Income distribution ....................................................................||85|
|5.4||Balance sheet on changes in economic welfare .......................||108|
|6 Concluding remarks...........................................................................||111|
|6 Innehåll||SOU 2000:83|
This report examines welfare state development during the 1990s in two Nordic countries, Finland and Sweden. It has been prepared in connection with the work of a Swedish governmental commission ”A Balance Sheet for Welfare of the 1990s” (Kommittén Välfärdsbokslut), that was allocated the task of assessing welfare development during the 1990s in Sweden. The commission interpreted its task to include a survey of changes in structural conditions and social policy. While such a broader view of national development was considered indispensable for understanding welfare development, the commission also recognised that its assessment would further benefit from a comparative perspective. Information on the similarities and differences between countries which thereby emerges can be useful for assessing the relative significance of various trends.
This report is a modest attempt at such a comparison. The choice to compare Finland and Sweden can be justified on one hand by the fact that these countries – and especially their welfare states – are often grouped together in international comparisons and affiliated with the ”Nordic welfare model”, and on the other hand because Finland and Sweden were also ”most similar” in terms of their experience in the early 1990s. No other countries in Europe underwent such severe economic problems and rapid increases in unemployment in the early
1 This report was written in connection with the work of the Swedish commission 'A Balance sheet for welfare of the 1990s' ('Kommittén Välfärdsbokslut' in Swedish, see SOU 2000:3). I thank Joakim Palme, Åke Bergmark, Johan Fritzell, Olle Lundberg, Elisabet Näsman, Lena Sommestad, Marta Szebehely, Mia Hultin and Martin Hörnqvist for making my and my family's short stay in Stockholm during fall/winter 1999 possible, for the inspiring work atmosphere and for their valuable help and comments in all phases of the process of writing this report. I also thank Olli Kangas, Pekka Kosonen, Juhani Lehto and Sven E.O. Hort for reading and commenting on an earlier version of this report. Furthermore I thank Richard Burton for his language editing skills. Of course, responsibility for all inadequacies in the following pages remains mine alone.
|8 Introduction||SOU 2000:83|
1990s. In fact, the magnitude of the changes has no parallel among the industrialised countries during the entire
The scope of the comparison was planned in connection with the work of the Swedish commission (see SOU 2000:3), but as no matching report on the Finnish development exists and there were limits set by time and resources, only certain aspects of welfare state development could be incorporated. The style of the report is necessarily descriptive rather than explanatory. The fact that the report is written by a Finnish researcher undoubtedly brings some bias to the selection of issues and to the way they are handled. With these reservations it is the author’s hope that by presenting an empirical description of developments in certain key areas the report will serve as a rough guide for comparing welfare state developments in Sweden and Finland during the turbulent decade of the 1990s. There is certainly scope for more
The remaining part of the Introduction reminds the reader of the existence of a specific ”Nordic model” of welfare states and about some findings from earlier comparisons which have included these two countries. The design of the report is then outlined.
1.1The ”Nordic model” and Finland and Sweden as ”two of a kind”
While all countries are unique, in comparisons involving many countries some may display very similar characteristics and group together on various dimensions. In international settings we speak of the Nordic countries as a distinct unit of nations that have historical, social and economic similarities. In short, the Nordic welfare states are a ”family of nations” (Castles 1993). With respect to social policy it is common to speak more precisely of a ”Nordic (or Scandinavian) welfare state model”. The countries associated with the Nordic model are Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (in some accounts Iceland is included in the list, in others not). The term ”model” embraces a
|SOU 2000:83||Introduction 9|
multitude of features of public policy, social policy arrangements, people’s welfare etc. that are regarded as common to these countries.
Whether countries can in the first place be categorised into various models is an ongoing theme in comparative welfare state research. Depending on the criteria for classification, research evidence mainly reliant on data from the 1980s and early 1990s has been used to divide the Western industrial countries into three
The literature testifies to numerous attempts to encapsulate the ”Nordic model”, but an undisputed list of traits of what constitutes the model remains elusive. There have been many studies over recent years, and the characteristics deemed relevant depend on the perspective chosen. There are certainly marked differences in historical development (e.g. Flora 1986), and furthermore, as Olli Kangas (1994) has shown, inclusion in a model is contingent upon a specific point in time as well as upon the dimension of welfare state development one is comparing.
Yet there is relatively unchallenged agreement on certain characteristics that in a wider comparison to other industrialised countries identify the Nordic countries as a group. To start with, the scope of public policy is large, it encompasses social security, social and health services, education, housing, employment etc., with the aim of meeting most basic needs via public measures. Consequently, the State’s involvement has been strong in all policy areas – not least in social policy – with efforts to
|10 Introduction||SOU 2000:83|
taxation without high user fees, and they aim to serve all residents in need. They are provided at the local level by local authorities and also mostly produced by them, resulting in a large share of public employment. Therefore the Nordic countries have also been characterised as
”social service states” (e.g. Sipilä 1997).
The characteristics mentioned above refer to the scope of publiclyrun policies and to the coverage and compensation they offer. The broad scope of public activity is reflected in public expenditure. Thus an additional distinguishing characteristic has arguably been the economic foundation of the Nordic welfare states. Relatively generous transfers together with a broad scope of services result in a high share of social expenditure of GNP, although here, too, there have been marked differences across the Nordic countries, not least between Finland and Sweden. As public financing of transfers and services has been considerable, the Nordic countries have also had high taxation.
High spending and high taxation have another side of course. In comparisons of net taxation (see Adema et al. 1996) the uniqueness of the Nordic countries pales somewhat as almost all benefits are taxable income2. Besides, high taxation is not an end in itself; a significant proportion of taxes is used for redistribution from the
The traits italicised above certainly feature in standard presentations of the Swedish welfare state, and indeed, in many comparisons Sweden has exemplified the ”Nordic model”. Although it is not always evident whether traits that have been found to characterise Sweden should be generalised to all Nordic countries, Sweden has nevertheless often been seen as a welfare state pioneer and a standard for other Nordic countries – for Finland probably more so than for Denmark or Norway. Lauri Karvonen (1981) has shown how Sweden has been the example
2 Not all comparisons note that social security benefits may be taxed differently in different countries. In the Nordic countries benefits are taxed to a higher extent than elsewhere (Adema et al. 1996).
|SOU 2000:83||Introduction 11|
to follow and the main source of inspiration for Finnish policy reforms. In terms of policy implementation, however, it is an established fact that Finland was a latecomer to the Nordic group (e.g. Alestalo and Uusitalo 1986; Kangas 1994; Kosonen 1993 and Salminen 1993). Finland took a similar route towards the Nordic welfare state, but achieved its criteria later and more rapidly than the others (Esping- Andersen and Korpi 1987). Against many benchmarks (such as coverage and compensation rates of various benefits) Finland became a Nordic welfare state only in the 1980s (Kangas 1993).
Thus although the 1990s underscored the similarities between Finland and Sweden, their differing paths towards such institutional similarity have certainly influenced and set boundaries for the developments of the 1990s. It is also worth pointing out that in 1990 there were still differences between the two countries, for instance with regard to institutional arrangements, generosity of benefits and services and availability of schemes. In other words, although the gap between Finland and Sweden narrowed rapidly after the 1970s, most indicators reveal that in 1990 Finland was still the leaner welfare state of the two. As a rule, the compensation rates of social insurance schemes did not reach Swedish levels, and in service provision Finland was clearly providing fewer public services, and of more modest quality. In fact, judging by social expenditures Finland was hardly part of the Nordic model, as its social spending share of GDP in 1990 was close to the EU average, rather than at the high Nordic level.
This short account of the Nordic model and the position of Finland and Sweden probably makes clear that judgements about similarity and difference are ultimately influenced by the choice of characteristics compared, the reference countries and the time period. A key starting point for this report is that despite more or less obvious disparities in degree, Finland and Sweden by 1990 were qualitatively very similar in relation to other industrialised countries. In a broad comparison they were considered ”two of a kind”. Both Finland and Sweden had been able to combine good overall economic performance and low unemployment with a broad public sector that aimed to guarantee high levels of social protection and social rights for their citizens.
|12 Introduction||SOU 2000:83|
1.2Working hypothesis on welfare state development in Finland and Sweden
Developments during the 1990s challenged the Nordic model on different fronts, and the uniformity of the Nordic countries may have been less intact than in the 1980s. Looking at the development during the early 1990s one can certainly see that Finland and Sweden faced very different prospects compared to Denmark and Norway (see Kautto et al. 1999). The title of this report – ”two of a kind” – also partly reflects this situation, while the question mark indicates that on closer examination the supposed similarity of Finland and Sweden may dissolve.
Indeed, some Finnish researchers highlight disparities between the two countries concerning overall developments during the first part of the decade. According to them, the main differences between Finland and Sweden focus around the severity of the economic crisis, the policy reactions to it and their combined consequences. In a nutshell, this view may be expressed as follows: during the deepest crisis years there was some overall agreement in Finland that the crisis in the economy had more of a structural than cyclical nature. For this reason policy adjustments needed to be harsh. In addition to measures that would help restore the competitiveness of the Finnish export industry, public sector reform was deemed necessary. Measures to balance the budget and correct the role of the public sector were taken fairly rapidly without much thought to their possible social consequences. The deep economic recession in itself harmed the economic welfare of the population, and it is argued that policy adjustments such as cutbacks in transfer and service systems also contributed to the poor employment development (Kiander 1997, 1999) and an overall decline in welfare among Finns. (see e.g. Koistinen 1994; Kosonen 1998; Vartiainen 1996).
In contrast to this, the interpretation among the Finnish researchers cited above is that Sweden opted for softer adjustment. In their view the Swedish economic recession was less severe than in Finland, and there was more reluctance to interpret the crisis as being a straightforward structural problem. At least partly for this reason, policy adjustment measures came later and to some extent also in a less drastic form than in Finland. Besides, the different tradition in economic policy meant that
|SOU 2000:83||Introduction 13|
In addition, the social policy system served as more of a cushion, since cuts introduced in the welfare systems were milder than in Finland. All in all, the more positive economic preconditions and the fact that policy reaction was designed to take social consequences more into account could create the impression that welfare among the Swedes developed more favourably than among the Finns. (Kosonen 1998; Vartiainen 1996; Koistinen 1994). This distinction of differences regarding the severity of the economic crisis, the policy reactions and their consequences for welfare will serve as a working hypothesis to guide the examination of the development patterns of Finland and Sweden during the decade (Table 1).
Table 1. Summary of working hypothesis on developments in Finland and Sweden during the 1990s
|Economic crisis||Severe||Less severe|
1.3Design of the report
Starting from the established evidence of similarity, this report examines welfare state development in the two countries during and after the exceptionally deep and
Throughout this report the emphasis is on both similarities and differences between patterns and trends. The research strategy employed in the macrocausal analysis that follows could be labelled ”narrative analysis” as Mahoney (1999) has suggested. Accordingly the research task is to unfold temporally ordered events that occur within cases. This approach entails disaggregation and a focus on historical sequences, process tracing and pattern matching (see Mahoney 1999.) With a focus on only two countries the question of whether or to what extent Finland and Sweden still meet the criteria of the ”Nordic model” is not directly addressed, but the results may still be relevant for model discussions and further studies.
In line with the starting points outlined above, the task of the report was to gather empirical evidence on different aspects of welfare state
|14 Introduction||SOU 2000:83|
development and to present this in a comparable way. The main thrust of the report is therefore divided into four sections. The first section documents the modified preconditions for social policy. Data on macroeconomic development and changes in unemployment and employment in the two countries are presented as background information on the severity of the 1990s economic crisis. The second section provides information about the development of public finances and budget consolidation. The third section investigates adaptation in social policy, and includes comparisons in different policy areas: cash transfers, elderly care services, childcare services and activation measures. The fourth section of the report examines developments in the welfare of the populations in these two countries. This is done first by exploring the way unemployment was distributed within the workforce. Welfare outcomes are then examined by looking at developments in income distribution, and finally developments in social assistance are also addressed here. At the end of each section a short balance sheet is provided to summarise the results of the comparison. The report concludes with a summary of these balance sheets.
Having now specified the focus of the report, three practical limitations need to be mentioned here. Firstly, the reader would obviously benefit from a detailed presentation of the institutional systems in these two countries, as well as the resultant differences in policy implementation, in order to fully digest the information presented. This would include the differences in political systems, administration, social policy programmes, the role of local authorities etc. Unfortunately it was not possible to include such a presentation in this report (for such comparisons see e.g. Ploug and Kvist 1996 for social insurance systems, Rostgaard and Fridberg 1998 for child care and elderly care, Baldersheim and Ståhlberg 1998, Sandberg and Ståhlberg 2000 for local authorities” role and Oulasvirta 1990 for the
Secondly, although the ambition was to present comparative information for each section and subject, the available evidence is not always comparable in a strict sense due to differences in data, time periods etc. This is not necessarily a major problem, however, when the main interest is in trends rather than levels (although admittedly level differences are important for interpreting trends). For a trend
|SOU 2000:83||Introduction 15|
comparison national data are useful too, as long as the rules for presenting statistics have remained consistent.3
A final comment concerns the choice of time period. The directive for the commission (Dir 1999:7, see SOU 2000:3) asks for a balance sheet of developments during the 1990s, but the availability of data means that the report only covers the period between 1990 and 1998 (or the last available data if this is not possible). The choice of this period is chiefly motivated by the desire to examine these uniquely severe economic downturns and their consequences. It is appropriate to point out that social phenomena have complex roots originating prior to 1990, and that this ”institutional heritage” places some limits on change. It should also be made clear that the economy alone certainly does not account for all the changes in policies and welfare. Still, it can be argued that the 1990s deserve special attention, both due to the severity of the economic downturn and because this may have triggered developments that were awaiting an additional push.
3 For example, the reforms of national accounts and social protection statistics following from EU membership create some problems for achieving comparable
2 The economic crisis of the 1990s
This section presents a general overview of the economic crisis of the 1990s in Finland and Sweden. The severity of the recession can be detected above all in the significant falls in gross domestic product, in the dramatic rise in unemployment and in the historically unique fall in employment. In all these dimensions the changes were of unprecedented magnitude, and few would disagree that these countries experienced their most severe spell of economic crisis since the 1930s. An effort is made here to distinguish between developments within this period in each country and between the countries. Examining employment developments in different sectors makes it possible to interpret the economic crisis of the 1990s as a series of
Although the economic crisis emerged in the 1990s, it had its roots in the 1980s (see e.g. Andersson, Kosonen and Vartiainen 1993, Kiander and Vartia 1998, Tarkka 1994, Sauramo 1991, Tson Söderström 1993, Jonung 1999). In both countries the crisis years were preceded by overheating of the economy, caused by liberalisation of capital markets and deregulation of credit markets, dramatically reduced saving rates, marked rises in housing prices and considerable increases in indebtness. The international recession was accompanied by problems with currency exchange rates. Interest rates rose rapidly, investment dried up, property values fell and domestic demand dipped sharply due to shift in saving patterns. Thus in both countries the recession had internal as well as external origins. Another similarity is that some structural problems became more apparent along with the cyclical downturn of the international economy. The similarities of the passage to economic crisis in the two countries are so striking that Lars Jonung in his analysis of Swedish stabilisation policy between 1985 and 1995 has named Finland a ”perfect copy” of Sweden (for further references see Jonung 1999: 202, for overviews about what happened at the
|18 The economic crisis of the 1990s||SOU 2000:83|
macroeconomic level in Sweden see e.g. Jonung 1999 and Kiander and Vartia 1998 for Finland).
There is much scope for a more detailed analysis and various opinions on which issues would need more thorough consideration. For the purposes of this report it is not salient to touch on discussions concerning the reasons for the economic crisis, nor to attempt a comparison of economic policies and their motives, although for the recovery of the economy and the public budget these are important issues.1 Here it is more appropriate to consider whether Finland and Sweden really had, if not a totally different type of economic crisis, at least differences in its severity. This is an important issue when attempting to understand the policy reactions and comparing the consequences of the recession.
It is clear that in both countries the most remarkable slump in gross domestic product occurred especially between 1990 and 1993. The statistics (Table 2) show that the drop in GDP was clearly sharper and deeper in Finland; the fall was close to 12 percent in the three years from 1990 to 1993, and from 1990 to 1991 the GDP declined by more than seven percent. Annual changes in Sweden were less pronounced between 1990 and 1992. Both the absolute and relative decreases in GDP during the crisis period of
1 Lars Jonung and others plan a comparison of economic policies in Finland and Sweden (see project description on the Academy of Finland web pages http//www.aka.fi).
|SOU 2000:83||The economic crisis of the 1990s 19|
Table 2. Gross Domestic Product in Finland and Sweden
|Finland||% annual||Sweden||% annual|
|1991||479,0||- 7,6||1447,3||- 1,1|
|1992||462,0||- 3,7||1426,8||- 1,4|
|1993||456,6||- 1,2||1395,1||- 2,2|
Source: OECD 1998, Statistics Finland and Statistics Sweden.
Note: National accounts and national currencies; figures for
Finland in 1990 prices, for Sweden in 1991 prices.
Apart from the common factors contributing to the crisis already mentioned, there may be numerous reasons why Finland experienced a deeper recession than Sweden. One obvious candidate is the additional impact of the curtailment of trade with the Soviet Union, while others may include investment shortcomings as Pohjola (1996) has suggested, or disparities in the severity of the banking crisis. On the other hand, and in a slightly longer time perspective, instability in economic development began earlier in Sweden. The 1980s already saw a lively debate on Sweden’s economic performance and the relation between the welfare state and economic growth. The problems in the economy in the early 1990s fuelled this debate further (e.g. Freeman et al. 1995; Agell 1996; Korpi 1996).
1993 marks the turning point in the macroeconomic trends, since when GDP growth has been somewhat faster in Finland. Much of the GDP growth in both countries is accounted for by fairly rapid recovery of the export industries, which was boosted by the forced devaluation’s of the Finnish markka and Swedish krona in Autumn 1992. The ”strong currency” policy founded on a fixed exchange rate had to be abandoned in both countries, and the currencies were left to float. The heavy currency depreciations were a blessing for the export industries as their price competitiveness improved considerably. Exports grew and the improved demand situation prompted a recovery in investments, coinciding with an upswing in the world economy. Recovery of the export sector led to an improved GDP status in both countries. As a result, there is no justification for talks of an economic crisis beyond 1993. Already by 1994 the value of industrial production and exports
|20 The economic crisis of the 1990s||SOU 2000:83|
in both countries had risen above the level prevailing before the crisis. At present both Finland and Sweden have the highest GDPs in their history, and their growth rates place them among the elite of the industrial world.
2.2Developments in unemployment and employment
|SOU 2000:83||The economic crisis of the 1990s 21|
Figure 1. Unemployment rates in Finland and Sweden
Source: Finnish Labour Review
In both countries unemployment rates are still at a high level, and despite some improvement in this area another labour market indicator – total employment – has shown a less positive development. Employment rates are still very low compared to 1990. In employment rates, too, the differences between Finland and Sweden are obvious. To start with, total employment rates throughout the entire
2 The figures are taken from Statistics Finland and Statistics Sweden. There are two different institutions providing unemployment statistics in both countries (the Ministry of Employment and Statistics Finland; AMS (Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen and Statistics Sweden) and their figures differ to some extent. The difference is accounted for by the Ministries' way of using register data, that include all unemployed
|22 The economic crisis of the 1990s||SOU 2000:83|
Figure 2 contrasts Finland and Sweden during the period. According to Eurostat labour force survey figures3 the drop in the employment rate was somewhat more pronounced in Finland (Figure 2). In comparison with the economic trends, however, the drop in Swedish employment can be considered more striking. After 1993 the direction of the trends diverge. The employment rate started to improve slowly in Finland while in Sweden it stayed low, and even continued to fall. In 1998 the employment rate in Sweden was still lower than in 1993, while for Finland the situation in 1998 was better. However, no return to 1990 levels has occurred in either country.
Figure 2. Employment rates in Finland and Sweden
Sources: Employment in Europe 1998 for the years 1990 and 1991,
Note: Eurostat employment rates are based on labour force surveys and indicate the total number of people in paid work relative to the
3 According to
|SOU 2000:83||The economic crisis of the 1990s 23|
2.3Anatomy of the crisis
According to Per Lundborg (2000), the development of unemployment in Sweden can be divided into three phases. Waves of unemployment reached the different sectors of the economy at different times. As a consequence, total unemployment was divided over the whole labour force rather than concentrated in certain sectors. In the ”international phase” the overheated economy ran into an expenditure crisis that coincided with an international downswing in demand. The plight of the export sector was worsened by the policy of a strong krona. The unemployment that ensued hit the export sector and its dependent sectors hardest. These and certain other factors led to additional problems in other sectors. In the ”real interest rate phase” the fixed currency exchange rate policy maintained in the period of relatively high inflation led to high interest rates. When inflation fell and nominal interest rates increased, rising real interest rates led to a fall in consumption and an increase in savings. The falling demand for domestic products caused unemployment in the
In conclusion, the various phases of Sweden’s economic crisis resulted in job losses in different sectors at different times. During the international phase
|24 The economic crisis of the 1990s||SOU 2000:83|
Figure 3. Employed persons by industry in Sweden
Source: AKU (SCB) by Lundborg 2000.
Since big disparities between the two countries can be found in unemployment levels and trends, it is worth contrasting Lundsborg’s account with the development in Finland. Generally, it can be seen that unemployment spread relatively evenly across the sectors of industry. Yet Lundsborg’s account of distinct phases with differing consequences for different sectors seems
|SOU 2000:83||The economic crisis of the 1990s 25|
Figure 4. Employed persons by industry sector in Finland
Sources: Labour Statistics 1997, oral information from Ministry of Labour, Finland.
Despite the different classification by type of industry, the figure suggests that between 1990 and 1993 employment decreased in absolute numbers in all industries in Finland. As in Sweden, the heaviest drops between 1990 and 1993 were in manufacturing, trade and construction. In absolute numbers most jobs were lost in the manufacturing industry, but in relative terms the fall was most precipitous in construction where about fifty percent of jobs vanished over the three to four years period. The figure also suggests that a major difference from Sweden occurred in the development of the service industry. The
|26 The economic crisis of the 1990s||SOU 2000:83|
slow. But surely, on the basis of unemployment trends alone one can certainly not draw the conclusion that there was no ”budget consolidation phase” in Finland. To examine the differences in employment trends in more detail, statistics on the development in absolute changes in employment by employer status are helpful (Figures 5 and 6).
Figure 5. Employment by employer status in Sweden
Source: SCB (Lundborg 2000).
Figure 6. Employment by employer status in Finland
Source: Labour Statistics,1997, oral information from Ministry of Labour, Finland
Comparing developments in employment by sector, the similarity between the countries between 1990 and 1993 is again striking. In Sweden the total employment loss in this period was 538 000 persons, and in Finland 433 000. Of course, in relation to the absolute level of total employment in these countries the loss was more dramatic in Finland; nevertheless, the pattern is quite similar. Most of the decline in employment occurred in the private sector: 400 000 lost jobs in
SOU 2000:83 The economic crisis of the 1990s 27
Sweden and 377 000 in Finland, the private sector thus accounting for about 74 percent of the reduction in Sweden and 86 percent in Finland. Also, both countries have seen private sector employment increasing since 1993.
Interestingly, the crucial difference in the development of total employment for the period
Summing up employment trends in Finland and Sweden between 1990 and 1998 it is interesting to note that total employment in absolute figures declined in both countries by 11.4 percent during this period (Table 3). Yet the way this decline was distributed between the private and public sectors was very different. Over the period 1990– 1998 total employment in Finland decreased from 2 502 000 to 2 217 000, the private sector accounting for 205 000 persons and public employment (State and municipalities) for 80 0004. Particularly interesting is the development in municipal employment; after the fall and subsequent recovery, the difference between 1990 and 1998 is a mere 2 000 persons. (Labour Statistics,1997, oral information from Ministry of Labour) In Sweden the number of State employees
|decreased from 394 000 in 1990 to 220 000 in 1998 (job||loss of|
|174 000). At the same time municipal employment fell from 1||258 000|
in 1990 to 1 089 000 in 1998 (job loss of 169 000). Overall, public employment decreased in Sweden by a massive 344 000 persons during this period.
4 Official Finnish statistics include a category for ‘employment by unknown sector’, but these figures are not included in the table as the point is to show the breakdown between the public sector and private sector. In any case, the number of 'employed by unknown sector' is not considerable (3 000 in 1990 and 8 000 in 1998).
|28 The economic crisis of the 1990s||SOU 2000:83|
Table 3. Employment trends in Finland and Sweden, 1990 and 1998, employed persons
|Private sector employment||1 793 000||1 588 000||- 205 000||- 11,4|
|Public sector employment||709 000||629 000||- 80 000||- 11,3|
|Of which State employment||226 000||149 000||- 77 000||- 34,0|
|Of which municipal|
|employment||482 000||480 000||- 2 000||- 0,4|
|Total employment||2 502 000||2 217 000||- 285 000||- 11,4|
|Private sector employment||2 816 000||2 652 000||- 164 000||- 5,8|
|Public sector employment||1 652 000||1 308 000||- 344 000||- 20,8|
|Of which State employment||394 000||220 000||- 174 000||- 44,2|
|Of which municipal|
|employment||1 258 000||1 089 000||- 169 000||- 13,4|
|Total employment||4 468 000||3 960 000||- 508 000||- 11,4|
Sources: Labour Statistics 1997, oral information from Ministry of Labour, Lundborg 2000.
Simple conclusions concerning shifts in the balance between private and public employment are complicated by the practice of labelling jobs differently. Some of the apparent job losses in the public sector are not true job losses but mere job shifts. For instance, the continuing downward trend in Finland’s State employment is partly explained by the privatisation of Post and Telecommunications in 1994, and Finnish Railways in 1995 (since when their employees are classified under the private sector). Similar changes have occurred in Sweden as a result of privatisation. Without more detailed investigations it is not possible to say whether the two countries have applied different practices of privatisation that would explain the differing trends in public and private employment. Similarly, with regard to public employment some caution is needed when assessing the distribution of employment within the public sector. Administrative changes and the practice of decentralisation may underlie some of the reductions in state employment in both countries. Furthermore, the table reveals nothing about the change in the nature of employment. Differences between the countries in the prevalence of
|SOU 2000:83||The economic crisis of the 1990s 29|
making these statistics. Nevertheless, the disparity of trends in private and public employment in Finland and Sweden is worth noting, especially as it runs counter to the working hypothesis of a softer welfare state adjustment path in Sweden.
It may be concluded that in both countries the decade started with a private sector employment crisis during the economic crisis years of
2.4Balance sheet for the 1990s crisis in Finland and Sweden
The macroeconomic and employment trends point to a fairly similar picture for both countries over the decade (at least until 1998), particularly in the overall pattern of economic development. Notwithstanding differences in intensity, the similarities are striking in terms of background causes of the economic crisis, as well as macroeconomic developments between 1990 and 1993. Furthermore, the export sector – led economic recovery since 1993 also displays a very similar pattern in both countries. A further similarity can be seen in the unemployment and employment trends during the severest economic crisis years of
Looking at developments over time, the economic turmoil of the 1990s can be divided into two waves: the economic crisis years of 1990 to 1993, which left an employment crisis in their wake. The employment crisis was triggered by the difficulties experienced in the private sector, but unlike the economic problems that began to wither after 1993, the employment problems proved more resilient. If the employment level prevailing in 1990 is used as the benchmark, the employment problem persists in both countries to this day.
While there are good reasons for claiming a general pattern for the dynamics of the crisis, the highlighted differences call for caution;
|30 The economic crisis of the 1990s||SOU 2000:83|
simplistic conclusions are simply not warranted. Although macroeconomic indicators show similar trends, the extent of the economic decline in
This section has confirmed that Finland experienced more severe economic problems and a much more pronounced unemployment crisis than Sweden. More interestingly, the comparison shows how falls in employment – despite the above mentioned differences – appear to have been equally severe in both countries. This highlights the need to include other factors in future comparisons, such as possible alternatives to unemployment, existing policy differences, or developments in migration. For example, it could be that in Sweden there were more alternatives to unemployment for those who lost their jobs, such as easier access to education, further training, activation measures etc. And although a comparison of migration trends during the period could not be undertaken here, the important differences in migration policy and in the number of refugees absorbed by these countries during the period have certainly influenced employment rates.
The economic crisis and the employment crisis are clearly related, but in terms of their implications for public finances, one should probably avoid drawing hasty conclusions. This section has shown that a change in the performance of the national economy is not the only important issue in the quest to understand the need for policy adaptation. The capacity of public finances and policies to adapt to shocks, and the political choices regarding adaptation to such shocks and timing of adaptation measures are also relevant. For this reason, the state of public finances and budget consolidation measures are addressed in the next section.
3 Balancing of public budgets
It has been suggested that public finances in the Nordic countries are especially vulnerable to cyclical fluctuations due to the high levels of revenues and expenditure (TemaNord 1997: 595). From the perspective of public finances the recession of the 1990s represented an attack on two fronts: revenues declined while expenditures increased. Unemployment and other economic and social adversities meant that more people were in need of financial assistance from the public purse. Public expenditure thus soared, though it should be noted that not all of this was due to the increases in transfers systems. In both countries the private sector, especially banking, also needed considerable support. At the same time there were significantly fewer people in employment contributing to the public purse. Moreover, as industrial and trade activity declined, there were falling tax incomes from these sources, too. The
But again, looking closer at the balancing of the public budgets, some considerable variations between the countries can be found. This section will identify some of these differences and emphasise that they resulted from deliberate choices made in economic policy and other political areas.
|32 Balancing of public budgets||SOU 2000:83|
3.1Problems in public finances
The macroeconomic problems and the inexorable rise in unemployment faced public financing with a situation of increased expenditure and declining revenue. In both countries the imbalance was financed with loans. Figure 7 shows the development of public indebtness between 1980 and 1998. Data for 1980s are included to illustrate the different borrowing traditions in Finland and Sweden. Between 1980 and 1990 gross debts ranged from 44 percent to 67 percent of GDP in Sweden, 12 and 18 percent of GDP, respectively, in Finland. Finland was quite exceptional in international comparisons in this respect.1
The trends from 1990 on are almost identical: a very rapid increase in indebtedness from 1990 to 1993 (in Finland) or 1994 (in Sweden) followed by a slow decline since then. In relative terms the increase in Finland was clearly more alarming.2 In absolute figures, a debt of 50 billion FIM in 1990 had become a debt of 420 billion FIM in 1998 (Data received from Ministry of Finance 1999, Finland). (Figure 7.)
1Net indebtness in both countries has been at a lower level. For instance, pension funds have allowed Sweden to have a significantly lower net indebtedness level than that suggested by its gross indebtedness. Still even in a comparison of net debts Finland has had a lower level than Sweden.
2Still the indebtness level in 1993 and since at the level of around 60 percent of GDP is close to a European average.
|SOU 2000:83||Balancing of public budgets 33|
Figure 7. Gross debt of the public sector in Finland and Sweden
Source: OECD Olis database (Summer 1999 update).
The state of the budgetary balance is often taken as another indicator of the ”soundness” of public finances. Taking the adverse economic situation into account, it is hardly surprising that between 1989 and 1993 both Finland and Sweden went from surplus to deficit. But as Finland had a deeper drop in GDP performance, which by 1993 had resulted in almost double the unemployment of Sweden, one might expect this to be reflected in public finances, too. But perhaps surprisingly, the figures for public deficits reveal that Sweden rather than Finland had the bigger problems, at least if the share of public deficits is the yardstick. Finland moved from a surplus of 6.0 percent of GDP in 1989 to a deficit of 7.1 percent in 1993, while Sweden went from a surplus of 5.4 percent in 1989 to a deficit of 12.3 percent in 1993. (Figure 8.)
|34 Balancing of public budgets||SOU 2000:83|
Figure 8. Public deficits as percentage of GDP in Finland and Sweden
|Source: OECD Olis database (Summer 1999 update).|
On the basis of the data on public deficits in 1998 both countries appear to have managed to balance their budgets. In addition to foreign borrowing, both countries obviously reacted to their uniquely bad deficit situation by implementing balancing measures. The shift towards more balanced budgets happened in 1993 in both countries, and by 1998 both had achieved balanced budgets. This was due partly to the economic upswing, but it also to a large degree resulted from policy adjustments. The estimates for 1999 and 2000 included in the figure show that the trend of improving balance is expected to continue in Finland at roughly the same pace, while Sweden is expected to experience an interruption.3
The report for the Nordic Council of Ministers by a group of economists argues that the balanced budgetary situation has been a lasting effect of the consolidation programmes (TemaNord 1997: 19). In international comparison few countries have been able to balance their public budgets with such success (see e.g. Mäki et al. 1999). Thus not only were the drop in economic performance and the deterioration
3 The difference results from policy choices. According to the Finnish Government’s
|SOU 2000:83||Balancing of public budgets 35|
of public finance at the beginning of the decade unique in the industrial world, but the subsequent recovery and consolidation process also seem to be without parallel. The IMF country reports describe the consolidation in Sweden as an ”unqualified success” (IMF 1999a), and use ”strikingly successful” for Finland (IMF 1999b).
The similarities with regard to the public deficit and the pace of budget consolidation suggest that both countries felt the need to balance public budgets equally strongly. While strictly economic reasons have been underlined as motivation for balancing, in the public debate two additional reasons for the tight fiscal policy have emerged. Firstly, it has been argued a major shift occurred in the economic policy paradigm. Secondly, Finland and Sweden joined the European Union.
On the other hand, there were differences, too. In the recent past Sweden had a history of more fluctuation in financial balances, whereas Finland during the 1980s continuously strived to avoid deficits (Pekkarinen and Vartiainen 1993). The countries also differed in their aspirations concerning EMU membership. For some, the fact that Finland had decided to enter EMU may signal that it took the balancing of deficits more seriously because of the deadlines for meeting the convergence criteria. Thus although data on deficit development show a parallel development, and despite the arguments for a similar shift in the economic policy paradigm in both countries, differences in past history and present preoccupation’s may have affected the timing and strength of reactionary measures.
3.2Public expenditures and revenues
Given the described difficulties in the economy, along with high unemployment and problems with public budgets, it seems appropriate to argue that both countries were under the most severe pressure since the 1930s to carry out adjustment measures. The policy reactions to this predicament are now addressed: how did Finland and Sweden respond to the new circumstances?
It was suggested earlier that in addition to possible differences in the severity of cutbacks, there may also have been variations in timing and in the way cutbacks were executed. To consider these issues we first examine the development of total public expenditures and revenues in the two countries to discover how consolidation was undertaken. The interest here is i) in the balance between expenditure cuts and revenue raising, ii) in when the cutback measures were introduced, and iii) in how savings measures were distributed.
|36 Balancing of public budgets||SOU 2000:83|
Yet it should first be emphasised that intentional policy changes certainly do not account for all of the improvement that occurred in public finances; part was surely due to the upswing in the economy. If public budgets are ”vulnerable to cyclical fluctuations”, as economists suggest (TemaNord 1997), it can be expected not only that they deteriorate rapidly and profoundly at times of economic crisis, but also that they recover quickly at times of economic upswing. Public finances may thus improve automatically or intentionally.4
In principle, governments can seek to balance public budgets by increasing revenues or (and) decreasing expenditures. The former method means tax increases, the latter involves cutbacks in existing policies and programmes. Neither of these measures offers an easy route forward for governments. There was already some agreement in Finland and Sweden in the 1980s and through to the early 1990s that tax levels were high. Widening of tax bases in the tax reforms in Sweden
As a first step to assessing the extent of intentional savings we can look at the expenditure in national budgets.5 Figure 9 shows how the expenditure trends in both countries are reasonably alike, at least when public expenditure is measured as percentage share of GDP. The figure shows how the share of public expenditure increased when GDP decreased and that its decline since 1993 has been slower than that increase. Comparing the developments for
4This distinction is a simplification, as of course governments intentionally seek to affect the economic development, too. It is, however, difficult to say how much of the economic recovery is due to government policies and how much to other reasons.
5I thank Tuomo Mäki at the Ministry of Finance in Finland for his help in getting OECD data.
6This is not only due to economic recession. The Social Democratic Party – led coalition government made their last budget before the Parliamentary elections in March 1991. The budget proposal came up with considerable improvements in the welfare sphere (e.g. a considerable increase in the level of unemployment benefits) - and increased public expenditures.
SOU 2000:83 Balancing of public budgets 37
strongly between 1991 and 1993. Since 1996 expenditures have declined faster in Finland.
Figure 9. Public expenditure as percentage of GDP in Finland and Sweden
Source: OECD Olis database (Summer 1999 update).
A decomposed view of public expenditure development over the period
|38 Balancing of public budgets||SOU 2000:83|
Figure 10. Public consumption expenditure in Finland and Sweden
Source: OECD Olis database (Summer 1999 update).
As regards the share of income transfer expenditures the higher level in Sweden in the 1980s is again apparent (Figure 11). The cost expansion of the early 1990s in Finland aligned it with Sweden within a few years. Since the
Figure 11. Income transfers in Finland and Sweden
% of GDP
Source: OECD Olis database (Summer 1999 update).
In both countries the budgetary problems have resulted in a higher level of debts to manage than in the early 1990s. This is also visible in public expenditures, as interest costs for debts have to come from other expenditures. Comparing the share of interest costs to GDP, it can be
|SOU 2000:83||Balancing of public budgets 39|
seen that the situation from 1980 to the present has not radically altered in Sweden (Figure 12). In fact, the figure shows that interest costs peaked higher in relation to GDP in the 1980s cycle than in the 1990s. However, for Finland the 1990s were drastically different from the previous decade, and the
Figure 12. Interest expenditures for public debts in Finland and Sweden
Source: OECD Olis database (Summer 1999 update).
Budget balancing in Finland
The entire public sector in Finland had higher revenues than expenditures in 1990, after which revenues declined and expenditures increased, as can be imagined. 1993 is the clear turning point for revenue trends; expenditures continued to increase until 1997, and a balance was reached in 1998. The prognosis for future trends is for revenues to continue to increase rapidly, while expenditure development is held stable. The development of state finances is quite similar (Figure 13). Between 1990 and 1993 revenues dropped sharply at the same time as expenditures increased, and the turning point in revenue trends again occurred in 1993. The subsequent marked increase in revenues reflects the enhanced economic activity and improved employment situation. Revenues from taxes have increased by around 6 percent a
|40 Balancing of public budgets||SOU 2000:83|
year since 1994. Revenues from
Figure 13. State expenditures and revenues in Finland
Source: Data received from Ministry of Finance, Finland.
Although a clear improvement in revenues is apparent, it needs to be emphasised that the balancing of state budgets in Finland was not achieved via tax increases. Those that were implemented were minor; they included i) increases in individual social security contributions, and ii) a
7 In addition to state tax the Finns also pay a municipal tax. Many municipalities have increased taxes during the 1990s.
|SOU 2000:83||Balancing of public budgets 41|
of public budgets in an important symbolic way, if they helped to boost economic activity.
According to calculations by Finland’s Ministry of Finance, the cuts amount to a total saving of 57 billion FIM between 1991 and 1999 (VM 1998). Of this total, 35 billion FIM was saved between 1991 and 1995 during the government term of the Centre Party – led coalition government, and 22 billion FIM between 1995 and 1999 during the government led by the Social Democratic Party and the National Coalition Party. Overall this is equivalent to 8 percent of the 1999 GNP. Yet as can be seen from the figure above, savings measures of even this magnitude could not curtail the rise in expenditures.
A crude breakdown of savings show that major cuts were achieved by reducing state subsidies to municipalities; 14.5 billion FIM was cut from state subsidies to local authorities. Cuts in various income transfer programmes make up another major savings category, totalling over 25 billion FIM. More specifically, unemployment insurance cuts worth 5.5 billion FIM were implemented, while a cut of 4.5 billion FIM was targeted at employment measures. Expenditure on pensions was reduced by 4.5 billion FIM and sickness insurance by 3.5 billion FIM. Increases in sickness insurance contributions amounted to savings of 1.5 billion FIM. Cuts in family benefits totalled 1 billion FIM, in housing allowances 5 billion FIM, in student allowances 0.5 billion FIM, and cuts in other social protection expenditure totalled 0.5 billion FIM. All other savings (subsidies to agriculture and firms, administration costs and foreign aid being the most important categories) account for a total of 14 billion FIM, (VM 1998).
These figures make clear that the social security system was the main target for savings. Cuts in state subsidies affected the financing base of municipalities and their potential to provide services. As about 80 percent of municipal expenditure goes to health care, social care and education, the state subsidy cuts have substantially affected the financing base of welfare services. Including state subsidy cuts, it can thus be roughly calculated that in Finland about 70 percent of all savings measures were implemented in the social policy sector (transfers and socialand health care services). If one equates cuts in state subsidies with the social and health services, approximately two thirds of social policy – related savings were achieved via transfer cuts, and one third by service cuts.
|42 Balancing of public budgets||SOU 2000:83|
Budget balancing in Sweden
In Sweden, the Bildt government made savings during 1992 and 1993, but according to the Ministry of Finance budget consolidation took place in earnest only between 1994 and 1998. On the basis of estimates of total savings during the 1990s (Ministry of Finance 1999, Sweden) it can be calculated that 85 percent of savings were implemented after 1994. In 1994 the fiscal balance was
Figure 14. State expenditures and revenues in Sweden 1994 and 1998, million SEK
|1 200 000|
|1 000 000|
Source: Data received from Ministry of Finance 1999, Sweden.
The Swedish consolidation programme was designed for
|SOU 2000:83||Balancing of public budgets 43|
of savings was added to the programme. Altogether this corresponded to savings of 8 percent of GDP for the
The Swedish consolidation programme included both tax increases and cuts in expenditures. The savings programme was estimated to yield 59.5 billion SEK as increased revenue, and 66.1 billion SEK as reduced expenditure (TemaNord 1997: appendix). Prime Minister Göran Persson’s book ”Den som är satt i skuld är inte fri” lists the savings and how they were distributed over time (Table 4). Two thirds of the savings were introduced during the short period between November 1994 and Spring 1995.
Table 4. Timing and impact of savings decisions in Sweden
|Savings decisions||Billion SEK saved|
|Savings decisions prior to 1994||19.0|
|Savings decided in November 1994||42.5|
|Budget measures 1995||39.7|
|Spring measures 1995||13.0|
|Spring measures 1996||26.0|
|Negative effect from decreases in incomes|
Source: Data received from Ministry of Finance 1999, Sweden.
Of the tax increases, the most notable was the introduction of the individual social insurance contribution (allmän egenavgift) in 1993. The contribution has since gradually been increased and in 1998 it was planned to amount to 6.95 percent of gross income (TemaNord 1997: appendix). The national income tax was raised from 20 percent to 25 percent for incomes above a given level (i.e. for those with the highest incomes). Another important tax increase involved the property tax. There were other changes directed at raising more revenues, too, and the total impact of the consolidation programme on revenues was 69.0 billion SEK.
Almost all expenditure cuts during the Bildt government and prior to 1994 were targeted at social security. They amounted to 9.4 billion SEK (cuts in pensions 2.2 billion SEK, in sickness insurance 0.6 billion SEK, in family policy 0.9 billion SEK, in rent allowance 1.8 billion SEK, and in housing subventions 3.9 billion SEK). Between 1994 and 1998 heavier cuts were introduced and they were more evenly distributed between different administrative sectors. According to the
|44 Balancing of public budgets||SOU 2000:83|
detailed information on cuts in the various Ministries budgets, it can be only roughly calculated that cuts in the Ministry of Social Affairs budget amounted to less than 50 percent of all cuts. This sum does not include cuts in labour market policy measures. On the expenditure side the programme included cuts in pensions, sickness insurance, unemployment benefits, child allowances, changes in indexing of social security benefits, and other measures. It is noteworthy that a deliberate policy choice was not to make cuts in services, as it was thought shortcomings in health care or child
3.3Balance sheet on budget consolidation in Finland and Sweden
While collecting material for this report it proved to be difficult to obtain detailed information on how consolidation was achieved. The account given here was based on general lists from the Ministries of Finance in both countries, and should thus be taken as a rough indicator of developments. More detailed investigations would surely be helpful to further evaluate policy choices regarding cutbacks.
On the basis of the material accessible for this report, a preliminary conclusion on the robustness of the intentional balancing measures is that the governments in both countries consolidated public budgets equally successfully. National assessments made at the Ministries of Finance come up with a very similar picture: in Finland the savings amounted to 8 percent of GDP (GDP in 1999 figures), and in Sweden also the savings amounted to 8 percent of GDP (GDP in 1998 figures). As a result of the consolidation measures, public deficits were transformed into a surplus in both countries in a roughly similar manner and speed, but the way this was achieved differed.
In the light of the information presented some major differences in budgetary adaptation between the two countries can be detected:
•the savings worth 8 percent of GDP in both countries seem to be spread over a longer time period in Finland;
•according to information from the Finnish Ministry of Finance (1998) concerning the share of cuts between the two Finnish governments, most of the savings, i.e. 60 percent, were introduced between 1991 and 1995, specially in 1992 and 1993. Information for Sweden suggests the share of cuts prior to 1994 of all cutbacks
|SOU 2000:83||Balancing of public budgets 45|
was about 19 percent. On the basis of this comparison, Finland was quicker to introduce balancing measures;
•the savings in Finland were thus weighted in the early 1990s, while in Sweden the severest cutbacks took place between 1994 and 1995;
•the consolidation was achieved in a different way: Finland opted far more for cuts in expenditures, while in Sweden the consolidation programme was based almost
•these different consolidation strategies mean that cuts carried out in social policy appear both absolutely and relatively higher in Finland, when contrasted with the size of social protection expenditures;
•looking only at cuts, the division between social policy cuts and other cuts was estimated at about 70/30 in Finland, while in Sweden the share of social policy – related cuts appears lower;
•the division between cuts in transfers and services was estimated at roughly 70/30 in Finland, while social policy cuts in Swedish state budgets were intentionally targeted exclusively at cash benefits;
•According to the latest policy formulations Finland seems to be continuing its tight budget policy, while Sweden has decided to use part of the surplus for policy reforms.
4 Adaptation in social policy
After the assessment of budget consolidation as a whole, we next concentrate on policy changes in the social field. A group of Nordic economists has suggested that countries which have achieved success in budget consolidation are ”characterised by an emphasis on expenditure cutbacks, particularly in transfer payments” (TemaNord 1997:19). In addition to such transfer cuts, social policy has been affected by changes in the local arena responsible for welfare services. In the previous section it was possible to show that countries differed in the way they implemented revenue and expenditure strategies, with regard to timing of adaptation measures and in the way cutbacks were divided between different policy sectors. Here the interest is on how adaptation is achieved within the social policy sector.1 The section starts with a more general description of adjustment regarding total social protection expenditure and premises for service provision. Thereafter follows a separate focus on changes in four policy areas.
1 While economic reasons have been the main justifications for policy adaptation, not all changes in social policy have aimed at
|48 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
4.1Social protection expenditure
Notwithstanding the problems involved2, a description of development of social expenditure as a share of GDP may be a helpful starting point to reveal the trends and difference in levels (Figure 15). Despite the marked difference in unemployment between the countries, the share of social expenditure as a percentage of GDP has always been on a much lower level in Finland. Simplifying a lot, one can say that coveragewise the differences have been smaller than in a comparison of compensation rates: Finland has usually had lower compensation rates than Sweden3.
The sharp increase in the share of social protection expenditure in Finland between 1990 and 1993 is very visible, and owes much to the steep rise in unemployment. Since 1993 social expenditure as a share of GDP has decreased in both countries, but levels are still very different. It may be that the slightly faster GDP growth and greater reductions in unemployment in Finland contribute to the somewhat more pronounced drop in social protection spending, although the cuts certainly affected it too. According to the estimates for 1998 and 1999, the drop continues to be rapid, and in 1999 the share of social protection expenditure as percentage of GDP was expected to be 27.0 percent (Social assistance 1997). In a EU comparison this means Finland returns to the European average, even though unemployment is still among the highest in Europe. The disparity with Sweden is considerable, both when one considers the relative scope of social
3The fact that Finland developed its system later is one reason that contributes to the difference. For instance, in pensions Finland introduced the earningsrelated pension scheme later than Sweden and therefore average pensions paid out are on a lower level.
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 49|
protection spending in the overall economy and with regard to the downward trends in expenditure share during the latter part of the decade.
Figure 15. Social protection expenditure in Finland and Sweden 1990– 98, percent of GDP
|Source: Nososco 1999, 2000.|
4.2Premises for service provision
It holds for both countries that while cash benefits are the responsibility of the state (or other institutions at the national level), services are a local responsibility. Throughout the Nordic countries municipalities or other local authorities are, together with the state, key actors in social policy, unlike in many other welfare states. Municipalities are legally responsible for providing services to their residents. Depending on the nature of the service, a municipality may decide to provide the service itself, buy it from another provider, or unite with other municipalities to secure a better financing base in relation to the size of its population. Local authorities provide the majority of social and health care services themselves, and to a large extent are also responsible for their financing. The state channels subsidies to them to guide the provision and ensure a certain level and quality of services, as well as to even out regional differences. Since the
|50 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
local authorities in the 1990s found themselves with considerably more independence in how services within their area were arranged.
Considerable autonomy in provision, funding and
In addition to a wave of reforms concerning the position of the municipalities and their powers to decide on service provision,4 local authorities were also faced with a very different economic setting at the dawn of the 1990s. The economic crisis naturally also hit the municipalities, thereby affecting the options for service provision in various ways. Firstly, the economic situation and unemployment undermined municipal tax revenues. Secondly, as local authorities in Finland and Sweden are partly dependent on state subsidies, the problems in state finances were also felt at the local level if and when cuts in subsidies were implemented. To balance this loss and the rising running costs of services, municipalities increased local taxes and user fees for health and social services.
Table 5 gives some basic background figures on the size and role of local authorities in Finland and Sweden by comparing the situation in 1990 to that prevailing in 1995. The table suggests local authorities in both countries were quick to adjust their expenditures to changes in GDP, and then to
4 State subsidy reforms are undoubtedly among the most important ones.
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 51|
Sweden. The declining impact of subsidies, especially the faster decrease in their role as a source of income in Sweden, is noteworthy.
Table 5. The role of local authorities in the public sector in Finland and Sweden 1990 and 1995
|Local authority expenditures,||19||19||25||24|
|percent of GDP|
|Expenditures of local authority||41||32||41||35|
|sector, % of public sector expenditures|
|Taxes, % of local authorities’ income||56||56||66||72|
|State subsidies, % of local authorities’||41||39||29||22|
|Fees, % of local authorities’ income||3||5||4||7|
Source: Kurri & Loikkanen 1998, collected from different tables.
Note: expenditures are total expenditures, including capital expenditures, but excluding business firms owned by municipalities.
The changed circumstances at the local level also meant changes on the
In short, there are many reasons to believe that major changes have taken place in all areas of social protection, both in cash benefits and in care services. In the following, adaptation in the social sphere is illustrated by examining changes in cash benefits, elderly care, child care and activation measures.
4.3Case 1: Adjustments in income transfers
In both countries social expenditure accounts for more than a third of all public expenditure and is thus a natural target for savings measures. And as we have seen, the bulk of savings measures were realised in the transfer sphere. The 1990s economic situation and accompanying
|52 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
public discourse about the detrimental effects of the welfare state on the overall economy and on incentive problems may have enhanced the willingness for cutbacks in the social field. Although the economic crisis emphasised the economic motivation for cutbacks, there were ideological motives involved, too. However, as Pierson (1994) has shown, reducing social expenditure is not a simple task. From a savings perspective the benefits that account for most of the expenditure could yield the biggest savings, even with minor cuts. However, from a political perspective the benefits accounting for the highest expenditure usually serve a large part of the population. Pensions are a case in point: a cut in pensions would affect a great number of benefit recipients (and voters) and thereby result in significant political losses. Earlier research on cutbacks (Alber 1988; Marklund 1988; Pierson 1994) has showed that cuts are often targeted at more selective programmes. Institutional factors, government composition (majority/- minority governments) and parliamentary procedures may also have an important influence on the passage of savings laws. Thus, where cuts should be attempted, and which will ultimately succeed, are by no means obvious.
Figure 15 showed how on an aggregate level social protection expenditure share has declined in both countries since 1993, but because this provides no clues on where and how cutbacks have been implemented a more detailed look is needed. However, comparing cutbacks between two countries is complicated by the many areas where cutbacks are possible and by the variety of ways of implementing
For the purposes of this report there was no easy way to compare the severity of cutbacks in the two countries, at least in numerical terms. OECD has a ”Social Expenditure Database (SOCX)” that gives statistics on expenditure development in the period
From the point of view of ”Nordicness” it is most important to assess whether the adjustments have resulted in structural changes. Ploug’s examination of cuts and reforms of the cash benefit systems in four Nordic countries suggests that between 1980 and 1995 there had
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 53|
been changes in most programmes by differing methods, yet the basic elements and structures had remained intact (Ploug 1999). It has also been suggested that the adjustments to benefit levels in the four Nordic countries have been changes ”in degree, not in kind” (Kvist 1999). Palme and Wennemo (1998: 37) conclude that the Swedish system ”has remained encompassing”. Similarly, Heikkilä and Uusitalo (1997: 183) state that the cuts carried out in Finland ”have not changed the basic features of the Finnish system”.
Yet it is not very easy to make a qualitative assessment. Although social policy cutbacks often involve savings of hundreds of millions, even billions of FIM or SEK, researchers have paid scant attention to the overall cash benefit changes. One explanation is the multiplicity of programmes with different rules, which would be very demanding to master; there are so many different programmes containing a variety of benefits and forms of assistance. Some offer basic security and some
For these reasons there are no easy ways to summarise the changes, not to speak of comparing them, as there are few overall assessments of changes during the 1990s available to start from. There are three concise national assessments of how cutbacks in social security systems were implemented; one for Finland by Kosunen (1997) and two for Sweden by Palme and Wennemo (1998) and Palme (2000). With the help of these an overall description of adaptation patterns is drawn on a country by country basis.
|54 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
Adaptation in Finland5
In Finland the first tough measures to stem the growth of public expenditures were presented as early as March 1991 (Kosunen 1997:31). The first savings programme was introduced to parliament in the summer of 1991 and contained estimated savings worth 10 billion FIM in 1992. This savings package involved a large number of cuts in social benefits and services. However, differing opinions over the cuts meant that only 4 billion FIM of savings was actually achieved. With the economic outlook growing ever more gloomy, tougher measures were deemed necessary. The job of looking for further savings was given to the budget chief in the Ministry of Finance, who presented a major savings plan in October 1992. It is revealing that some of the suggestions in this ”Sailas Paper” were implemented as early as the beginning of 1993. The ”Sailas Paper” proved the most comprehensive agenda of cutbacks, as it suggested reductions in almost all social policy programmes. (Kosunen 1997:
Until 1993 there were no major changes in unemployment benefits; the basic unemployment allowance remained at the level of 1991.
Sickness benefits have been revised often. The Centre Party
5 What follows is mainly based on the
SOU 2000:83 Adaptation in social policy 55
reduced in 1992 and 1993. The thresholds of subsidies for medicines, examinations and care were raised. In 1994 child extras were abolished. In 1996 the rules for receiving sickness benefits were revised to reduce the coverage of the system. In 1997 paid maternity leave was slightly extended.
The housing allowance was the target of major cuts in 1993, but some 25 percent of those living in rented apartments had already stopped receiving assistance in 1992 after reforms affecting qualifying conditions.
Family policy changed substantially. Tax deductions for children were abolished and the saving gained was shifted to the amelioration of family benefits. Child allowances therefore increased from their 1990 level. In March 1990 the annual child allowance for one child was 3 060 FIM, whereas by March 1995 it had grown to 6 840 FIM. In 1990 there was a reform in the child
To understand the changes in income transfer schemes some taxation modifications need to be highlighted. Overall, taxation has changed since the reform of 1991. Some major deductions (sickness costs, child costs) have been abolished, and sickness insurance contributions have been raised. In 1994 part of the responsibility for financing the unemployment insurance and
The changes made in both taxation and the social security system show that the first years of the slump (1991 and 1992) saw relatively few reforms. As the recession continued and proved deeper than expected, further reform proposals came in 1993, and 1994 continued the trend in savings measures. Despite the change of government in 1995, the cutbacks continued: all previous measures were kept in place
|56 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
and in addition the Social Democrat
Adaptation in Sweden6
Despite the similar timing of the economic crisis, one could argue that economic problems reached Swedish politicians with a considerably longer delay (Jonung 1999). While there were important cutbacks in social policy during the Bildt government, they began in earnest only after the change of government in 1994 (Palme and Wennemo 1998).
Palme and Wennemo (1998) have presented an assessment of the cutbacks in social security in Sweden. Since 1993 the share of all social security programmes as percentage of GDP has been reduced. This is partly due to the recovery of the economy (which has increased GDP), but according to Palme and Wennemo (1998) all benefits have also been subject to cuts.
Ending indexation has been the most important way of reducing pension expenditures. The basic pension was reduced by 2 percent in 1993 and further cut in 1996. Qualifying conditions for
6 The description below gives a mere glimpse of the reforms. For more detailed information see Palme and Wennemo 1998 and Palme 2000.
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 57|
As in Finland, sickness benefits have been under heavy attack. Coverage, compensation rates and length of recipiency have all been renegotiated. In 1993 the compensation rate was lowered from 90 percent to 80 percent. In 1996 a further reduction took place, this time to 75 percent. In 1998 the compensation rate was restored to 80 percent.
The Bildt government tried to implement a number of changes in unemployment benefits. A compulsory fund was introduced, while terms for requalifying for unemployment benefit were tightened. The
Housing allowances were cut considerably. One aim was to target the housing allowance more towards families. Housing allowances (like child benefits) were raised to compensate for the changes resulting from the taxation reforms. Following these reforms expenditure increased rapidly and cuts were introduced in 1995 and 1996 to decrease the allowance levels.
Balance sheet on adjustments in income transfers in Finland and
The rhetoric of ”economic necessity” prevailed in both countries in the early 1990s and the severe economic problems can also be claimed to have promoted a sort of general ”crisis consciousness” in both countries. It is also hard to accuse governments of ”blame avoidance” (Pierson 1994) with regard to cutbacks; in both countries cutting of expenditure became close to a political virtue in the changed conditions, which may help explain why some of the cutbacks were relatively easy to implement. Even lacking a detailed comparison, it can certainly be said that severe cutbacks have been implemented in both countries.
Still there are major differences, although unfortunately to weigh these in more detail we need to wait for more comparable evidence. At present no detailed comparison exists, and the views expressed so far are somewhat conflicting. For instance, Pekka Kosonen (1993) argues that social policy in Finland ”has been more subordinated to ”economic necessities” than in other Nordic countries” (Kosonen 1993: 50, 1998). The present account of budget consolidation suggests some crucial differences in adaptation strategy, especially regarding the intensity of total cutbacks and of targeting of the social policy sector, with Finland implementing more austere measures.
|58 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
On the other hand, when Staffan Marklund (1995) compared the 1996 budgets for Finland and Sweden, he concluded that the solutions were very similar. Both countries were cutting expenditure in earnest, but Marklund’s view was that measures in Finland were more gradual and less dramatic. He concluded by saying that as a result of cuts the Finnish welfare state appears less damaged than the Swedish (Marklund 1995: 411). Marklund’s judgement is affected by the year of comparison, however, as his task was only to compare budgets for a certain year. This report reveals that the cuts in Finland appeared mainly during 1993 and 1994, while in Sweden 1996 was one of the most intense cutback years. Also, so far there have hardly been any real ”improvements” in the social security system in Finland, whereas in Sweden the cuts came over a shorter period
On the basis of this report a preliminary conclusion could be that heavier reductions, earlier timing and extending on of cuts over a longer period characterise Finland, while a later, shorter and – within that period – tougher adjustment strategy characterises Sweden.
What could be the explanation for these differences in timing and severity of cutbacks? Kosonen (1996) argues that Finland differed from other countries, especially in the way savings were planned. Instead of a committee or working group appointed by the government, the planning of savings was left in the hands of one person and the savings programme was prepared and implemented by civil servants. It could be that this ”political neutrality” also contributed to the quick passage of savings legislation. The fact that the savings were proposed by a civil servant and carried out by civil servants at the Ministry of Finance may also be important from the perspective of ”blame avoidance”. In this way no political party had to bear excessive political responsibility; the savings plan could be accepted as ”neutral”. This may also explain why the cuts introduced by the
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 59|
4.4Case 2: Adaptation in elderly care
From a Nordic model perspective Finland and Sweden have long stood out as exceptionally ”public” states in international comparisons. This feature arises from their unique scope of publicly provided services rather than from an exceptional programme of cash benefits (see e.g. Kohl 1981; Castles 1998; Birch Sørensen et al. 1998). Services make up a significant part of the GDP, and of all social expenditure the share of social and health services in 1997 was 41 percent in Sweden and almost one third (31 percent) in Finland (Nososco 1999). These figures testify that both countries have invested hugely in services. The character of services differs from elsewhere, too; in comparison, there is a greater variety of public services that cater for a broader spectrum of the population. Access to services has been based on citizenship, and lately on residence, rather than on merit or prepaid rights, and services are provided according to need. To satisfy all needs, it has been the aim for services to be of high quality, and run by professional staff. With these characteristics, service provision in the Nordic countries can be said to be founded on the principle of universalism.
As publicly arranged social care services are a distinguishing feature of the Nordic model (e.g. Sipilä et al. 1997), elderly care and childcare services are examined here; they form the core of social care services, whether measured in expenditures or numbers of people served. Did the nineties mean changes in the way these services are resourced? Are the services as universal as before? First comes an overview of developments in both countries regarding expenditures and personnel numbers. Thereafter follows a look at changes in the coverage of services. We start with elderly care services.
There is no one correct picture of old age
Statistics are also being revised following a shift to the Esspros system coordinated by Eurostat. The Esspros system is now guiding EU countries to classify their social expenditures in a similar way, and
|60 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
the latest statistics both in Finland and Sweden are compiled accordingly. For this reason Esspros statistics are chosen for comparison, although due to the
Nevertheless, in Esspros statistics an attempt is made to classify expenditure items according to various social risks, old age being one of them. The classifications should also be consistent over time. As Esspros statistics on
In all countries expenditure related to old age forms the biggest spending category. However, there are major differences in the way this expenditure is divided between pensions and other income transfers and services. According to Esspros statistics, expenditure in Finland related to old age accounted for about 9 percent of GDP in 19978 (about 55.4 billion FIM in 1998), and 30 percent of all social expenditure. In Finland the weight is clearly on the cash benefit side: pensions and other transfers absorb 89 percent of the expenditure, while social care services account for 11 percent. In Sweden expenditure related to old age accounted for close to 13 percent of GDP in 1997 (222,7 billion SEK), and 36 percent of all social expenditure. Of all
7Care in health care centre bedwards is comparable to care in nursing homes in Sweden. As in the Swedish Esspros statistics costs for nursing homes are included, Esspros statistics show a major difference in expenditure levels, which is not warranted by reality.
8Again it should be remembered costs for long term care services are not included in this category, which affects the balance and level.
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 61|
calculating expenditures. Finnish elderly care expenditures are simply markedly lower. On the other hand, a recent Swedish report describing service expenditures for the elderly (Ds 1999:61) gives more similar public net spending figures (purchasing power parity corrected) for services for the elderly in the two countries: 38 000 SEK per elderly per year in Finland and 48 000 SEK in Sweden.
More work is clearly needed to explain the disparity in levels. Instead of delving deeper into the expenditure figures, the Esspros figures are here indexed in order to focus on trends (Figure 16). The figure shows no decreases in resources for Finland, and for Sweden the trend since 1993 is a slowly increasing one.9 After 1993, the data suggest a more pronounced relative resource increase in Finland.
Figure 16. Development of expenditures on elderly care services in Finland and Sweden
Source: Calculations based on STM 1998:15 and Socialdepartementet 1999 Esspros figures.
Here it should be pointed out that due to the major difference in expenditure levels, a trend comparison like this also becomes problematic. Finland has a much lower starting level, both for institutional care and home help services, and increases in expenditures may just reflect this initial disparity. A
9 For Sweden the bump in Esspros figures for 1995 may be explained by an equivalent bump in expenditures related to disability, more than by an actual decrease in spending that year. Yet the possibility of a real decline should not be ruled out as 1995 was the year of the most pronounced cutbacks in Sweden.
|62 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
national data for Finland expenditures did not increase much during the economic crisis years. On the other hand, no decrease in expenditures occurred either. Since 1994, expenditures have again started to increase. According to national sources (STM 1998:15) expenditure for institutional care is more than double that for home help. Expenditure on institutional care has increased modestly over the period. Home help expenditures in turn were stable in
For Sweden, a picture emerges of slowly increasing expenditures over the
As a great deal of the expenditure on elderly care services stems from personnel costs, it is appropriate to balance the picture of resource development with a figure describing the development in personnel between 1990 and 1998. As many needs of the elderly are answered by the health care sector, both health care and elderly care personnel are included. Since no comparable statistics on personnel exist, Figure 17 should be interpreted only as a rough estimate of trends concerning personnel development in Finland and Sweden. The Swedish data are from AKU data with no adjustments for
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 63|
Figure 17. Personnel in the health care and elderly care sector in Finland and Sweden
Sources: Stakes Statistics, AKU
Note: The number of employees for Sweden is the sum of workers in health care and elderly care services according to labour force surveys. The number for Finland is calculated from social and health care personnel statistics so that the child care personnel number is subtracted from the sum of all social and health care workers. These give only rough estimates of the development for each country, not comparable ones.
Figure 17 suggests personnel development has been more favourable in Finland, which accords with the description of public employment development earlier. While the trend in Finland has been very stable over the period, there has been a smoothly diminishing trend caused by reductions in personnel in Sweden between 1990 and 1997. The trend seems to reverse after 1997.
More specifically, for Finland it is apparent that there have been some reductions in personnel in health care, although not very pronounced, whereas personnel numbers in the social care sector have on the whole increased a little from 1990 to 1998, with some fluctuation in between. It is worth noting that at no point in time did social care personnel fall below the number in 1990. The number of personnel in the health care sector in 1998 almost equals that in 1990 (111 700 in 1990, 111 100 in 1998), while the overall number in the social care sector (not taking into account child
|64 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
Owing to different ways of classifying personnel and also to the substantial administrative changes, no similar information is readily available for Sweden. Yet it seems clear that the development in personnel has been different from Finland. According to Szebehely (2000) the number of persons employed in the health care sector and within elderly care and care for the handicapped decreased by 94 000 people between 1990 and 1998. Most of this reduction occurred in the health sector. For Sweden the expenditure rise after 1993 is not reflected in increases in personnel, at least until 1998.
Summing up resource development the main message is that the economic downswing did not result in a similar downturn in the resources for elderly care in Finland, while it was more straightforwardly associated with expenditure and personnel reductions in Sweden.10 Perhaps surprisingly, the
Yet, even for Finland the overall surprisingly positive picture of resource development hides some less positive developments. It should be remembered that although no jobs were lost during this period practically no new recruiting happened, either, and workers have become older and the client group has continuously expanded. Productivity has increased, but so also has the amount of work done.
It is also important to realise that in both countries the reductions in state subsidies were compensated by an increase in other revenue sources, and without that the picture portrayed above would look much more gloomy. During the 1990s the tax revenues of the municipalities indeed were important to compensate for the subsidy losses, although the tax roof imposed on Swedish municipalities at the beginning of the
10 Although Esspros expenditure data is not available for prior to 1993, national expenditure data for Sweden confirm reductions between 1990 and 1993 (see SOU 2000:3, figure 2.2:1).
11 Quality of services (not considered in this section) could have been affected, too.
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 65|
1990s should be kept in mind as a possible explanation for the resource cutbacks there. Also, there have been savings in other than personnel expenditures, especially in health care. From a clients perspective one of the most important changes over the decade was in user fees; a growing share of the costs was shifted to service users. In Finland, for instance, according to Lehto (1997) municipality revenues from user fees grew between 1993 and 1995 by 23 percent in home help services and by 7 percent in institutional care. From a Finnish service users perspective the shift from institutional towards
Moving from resources to outputs provides a further view of the development. Elderly care can be examined from various angles, yet one of the most common ways is to make a distinction between institutional care and
Again there are difficulties in obtaining comparable data on the development; even national
|66 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
Figure 18. Institutional care in Finland and Sweden
Sources: Stakes statistics for Finland, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs 1999 for Sweden, Szebehely 2000 for the elderly population, own calculations.
Note: For Sweden, traditional institutional care includes places in nursing homes and
It is evident that the countries have developed quite similarly when we take the totality of institutional care, i.e. both traditional institutional care and service housing, into account. The absolute numbers of places have slowly increased, although the overall pattern revealed by the figure is a slightly diminished supply of services when we take the growing elderly population into account. Yet the way this overall development has taken place differs somewhat. In Finland deinstitutionalisation has occurred quickly. Places per number of elderly in service housing have increased rapidly, while the number of places in traditional institutional care has decreased over time. National statistics furthermore reveal that this decrease has mainly focused on places in
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 67|
worth noting how, after differing trends, the two countries seem to be more alike in their pattern of institutional care in 1998.
In most countries there has been a deliberate move from institutional care towards more
Table 6. Home help for the elderly in Finland and Sweden 1997, percentage of the age group
|Finland, over||Sweden, over||Finland, over||Sweden, over|
|65 years||65 years||85 years||80 years|
Source: Nososco 1999: 109.
However, this table may be misleading. In the search for trends it proved to be difficult to present comparable figures on the development of home help due to large differences in statistical reporting and changes in reporting practice. Finland classifies services for elderly households, Sweden for elderly persons. Categories for age groups also differ. In addition, there is no comparable information on how often home help service is given, nor on the length of visits. Moreover, for Finland the practice of having auxiliary services (support services such as cleaning, bathing and meal services are not included in the figures for home help) as an additional category blurs the picture, as recipients of auxiliary services may or may not simultaneously receive home help services. And in Finland there is some confusion concerning the extent of home help given to elderly in service housing. Since 1995 home help to elderly living in service housing is not reported if there are personnel on site, so longitudinal data for the nineties are not comparable in this respect. Again, due to these problems of comparability national descriptions follow.
In Finland the drop in home help services was most pronounced between 1991 and 1994, but the trend continued thereafter, albeit at a much slower pace (Figure 19). In percentage terms, in 1990 21 percent of the population over 65 years of age received home help services, but by 1997 the share was down to 11 percent. Only for the oldest age group was there a slight increase in the number of home help recipients. Thus while the number of personnel stabilised, and then
|68 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
increased towards the latter part of the period, the number of persons receiving home help services decreased. This apparently odd situation is explained by a change in the content of home help services, which became more and more targeted at the households with the oldest and most frail elderly. While the number of households receiving home help decreased by 28 percent between 1989 and 1993, the number of visits increased by 22 percent (Lehto 1995). This targeting of the frailest elderly has also meant that time spent per client has increased (Vaarama and Noro 1997). In contrast, those deemed to have less severe needs have been left without home help services. Moreover, there has been an even more dramatic reduction in auxiliary services. In 1990 200 000 people over 65 years of age received auxiliary services, while in 1997 the number was down to almost half (103 000). Furthermore, for these services too, user fees have risen heavily.
|Figure 19. Home help services for elderly households in Finland|
|140 000||All elderly|
|of age receiving|
|60 000||home help|
|of age receiving|
|20 000||home help|
|0||Elderly over 85|
|years of age|
|receiving home help|
Source: Stakes statistics.
Home help services as a support service have also been reduced in Sweden, and in a very similar manner (Figure 20). Between 1990 and 1997 the number of recipients of home help and home nursing decreased by 36 000 (from 182 000 to 146 000) (Szebehely 2000), and underlying this trend lies a targeting of services at the older elderly (see also SOU 2000:3:
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 69|
Figure 20. Home help services for elderly persons in Sweden
% of age group
Source: SOU 2000:3, figure 2.2:21.
Balance sheet of adaptation in elderly care services
Summing up the development in elderly care services, it seems both countries have followed a relatively similar path. At times of economic problems elderly care services have been unable to respond to the growing numbers of elderly with an increase in service provision. The amount of institutional care has declined somewhat when we take into account the development in the number of older elderly. Deinstitutionalisation seems to have taken the form of leaving those already in institutions to continue living there, while being reluctant to take in more. Instead of institutional care we see growth in service housing, along with a reduction in services promoting living at home. There has been a major reduction in absolute numbers of clients of home help services. Targeting of home help services could perhaps be interpreted as a result of efforts to prevent institutionalisation. While home help services may have been able to promote independent living at home for the frail elderly, the consequence of this targeting at a time of no or minor growth in resources has been that a number of elderly deemed to have less need for care have been left without services. Although care needs are hard to measure, it is difficult to imagine that the care needs of the elderly have diminished along with the disappearance of home help services. It is more likely that the care needs of a growing number of elderly are more often answered by relatives, or by voluntary organisations and private market solutions.
|70 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
Contrasting this picture with the ideal type of Nordic ”public service state” or ”caring state” reveals that the reality does not match the idealised picture very well. First, during the early 1990s there was a shift from the public service state towards the transfer state, at least if we measure the balance between cash and care by expenditures. In both countries the share of services declined between 1990 and 1993 as expenditure on pensions and other income transfers continued to increase while the local authorities were considering savings in social care services for the elderly. Towards the latter part of the period under investigation here, expenditure on services increased faster than expenditure on cash benefits, and the balance moved toward the ”public service state” again. This return was more marked in Finland.
Assessing the development from the perspective of caring, home help is the indicator which should receive most attention. Home help has traditionally been the form of service distinguishing the Nordic countries from the rest of Europe, but with the radical reductions in absolute number of services and consequent push for more familyor
4.5Case 3: Adaptation in child
In many broad comparisons services are often analysed in an aggregate way, which loses the different character of services for young children as compared to older people. While with elderly care services one should keep an eye on developments in the health sector, an analysis of child care services should be linked more to the education sector and to employment. The provision of child care services can be understood as
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 71|
a means of facilitating both parents to participate in the labour market. Childcare services have also been supported as a means for the socialisation and education of children. In recent years pedagogic aspects have received more emphasis. In Sweden an administrative shift of responsibility for
In Finland there are three main forms of support for children (and their parents) under school age.12 After the parental benefit period (44 weeks) ends there are then two options for arranging child care: public child day care or supported home care. Home care is supported by means of a home care allowance: a cash benefit is payable to parents after the parental benefit finishes and before the child reaches the age of three, on the condition the child is not using public day care. In Sweden the parental benefit period lasts a little longer (64 weeks). Another important difference is that there is no home care allowance system (vårdnadsbidrag) in Sweden.13
While all countries have many different measures to support families with children, in accordance with their ”public service state” image the Nordic countries have differed from other welfare states in the extent of public day care provision. But close inspection of levels and trends across the Nordic countries reveals marked disparities. Sweden and Denmark have had far more
12Child benefits apply to all children, not only those under
13Such a system was introduced in 1994 during Carl Bildt’s government, and abolished when the Social Democrats returned to power in 1995.
14Basically this means the age group between 1 and 6 years, although there are some differences between the countries in the age day care arrangements start and end.
|72 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
with elderly care, the development in public child
Figure 21 shows the development of resources in both countries (with the data limitations described earlier). Although the trends for Sweden are missing for the
Figure 21. Development of expenditures on child
Source: Calculations based on STM 1998:15 and Socialdepartementet 1999 Esspros figures.
Looking at the period overall, expenditure on public childcare in Finland has increased faster than other expenditures related to children under
15 As with elderly care, issues related to quality of care, regional differences and user fees would undoubtedly be important for a thorough assessment over the period. However, as there are no comparable data, and not even much national data on these issues, the subjects are not covered here.
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 73|
result of the reduced demand for services. Since the economic upswing expenditures have risen, reflecting a rebound in demand. The recession years saw a rise in the number of parental benefit recipients, the increase being especially rapid for fathers (from 27 000 in 1990 to 43 000 in 1992). Expenditures also rose for home care allowances, as the number of recipients increased from 81 000 in 1990 to 95 000 in 1993. After 1993 there followed a decline in the number of transfer recipients. Some have regarded
Figure 22 shows the development in personnel in both countries. Again, the data are not comparable as the Swedish data for childcare employees comes from labour force surveys and no
|74 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
Figure 22. Personnel in child day care in Finland and Sweden 1990– 98, 1990=100
Source: Stakes statistics, AKU, own calculations.
To make an assessment of public childcare coverage, information about public childcare places and family day care has been united here. Historically, the coverage of day care (measured as the percentage share of children attending childcare of all children) has always been lower in Finland, and this is still true according to the latest national statistics (Figure 23). In 1997, 49 percent of children aged
When it comes to trends, there are both differences and similarities. In Sweden 57 percent of children between 1 and 6 years were in public
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 75|
7 years, the coverage grew from 35.7 percent in 1990 to 41.1 percent in 1998.
Figure 23. Share of children under seven years of age in day care in Finland and Sweden
Sources: SCB and Stakes Statistics.
In Sweden there has thus been a stronger trend of fewer parents staying at home and the number of children in public
In Finland the decline in the numbers of children in public
|76 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
increase can be detected, especially recently. In 1997 3.6 percent of children under
Balance sheet on adaptation in child
Summing up the development in childcare services, in both countries we find a relatively similar pattern regarding expenditures: a decrease followed by an increase. Unlike Finland, the expenditure decrease in Sweden was accompanied by a reduction in personnel, although with a time lag. The rising numbers of children attending
Despite increases in user fees and modest expenditure development, both countries have experienced a trend of increasing childcare provision. This has occurred via an increase in both public
16 Unfortunately no reliable long time series exist on the development of private care.
17For many this is a sign of decreasing quality, although group sizes do not necessarily correspond with quality.
18In 1993 the recipient statistics show there were 96 000 families with 160 000 children receiving home care allowance.
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 77|
Conclusion on elderly care and child
In the light of the expenditure developments, it seems that elderly care and child day care services did not experience cutbacks as severe as could have been imagined in the light of the problems in public finances. Surprisingly, expenditures for Finland seem to have developed more favourably than for Sweden. It is surely the case in both countries that at least the employees have been under more pressure (unemployment and worse working conditions, increased need for services), while service users have felt the savings measures in their purse as higher user fees.
In terms of coverage of services the development patterns in elderly care and child
In many respects the trends for Finland appear more positive during the latter part of the period under investigation. This, however, may only be an illusion created by the remarkably lower absolute levels at the beginning of the period and faster growth at the end, both in expenditures and coverage. And even with Finland’s relatively faster growth, considerable differences in service provision between the countries persist. Regarding coverage trends, for elderly care services it seems the differences have diminished, while for child
4.6Case 4: Adaptation in active labour market policies
Active labour market policies have various goals that meet at the interface of stabilisation policies, policy reaction to growing unemployment, and goals of social redistribution. In international comparisons the Nordic countries, especially Sweden, have been used as a point of reference when it comes to the scope and status of active labour market
|78 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
policies. Labour market policies in Sweden have played a central role in economic policy since the early 1900s, and active labour market policies (almp) started to play an important role after the 1940s when the
It is very interesting to see whether Finland and Sweden showed some continuity during this exceptional period; but there is an additional concern. As Drøpping et al. (1999) have pointed out, to invest in almp is, at least in the short run, quite costly for the government. The fate of almp in a context where a deliberate policy goal has been to balance public budgets is therefore interesting.
The scope of almp can be measured in different ways. The OECD makes international comparisons possible, and ”Employment Outlooks” contain figures based on OECD definitions (see Drøpping et al. 1999 for a discussion of the definition of active and passive measures and different ways to measure the degree of activation). OECD practice mostly involves expenditure comparisons. Eurostat collects statistics on the volume of almp and defines an activation rate in relation to the number of registered unemployed people. A problem for comparisons is that countries have a somewhat differing practice of defining ”registered unemployed”. Here we assess the development with the help of national statistics on almp. The interest is on the volume of almp, measured in terms of participation to different almp measures during a year. To be able to compare development in the two countries the number of persons in the labour force is used as denominator, instead of the number of unemployed. The obtained ratios of almp participants to the labour force provide a clue about the differences between the countries, although it is naturally not possible to capture differences in lengths of activation measures, possibilities to switch from one measure to another etc.
19 This is of course not to say almp have been unimportant in Finland.
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 79|
Compared to the situation of full employment in 1990, not only the level of unemployment but also its structure have changed. Almp have needed to react to differing circumstances not only by an increase in volume but also by a differentiation in policy measures. In both countries the 1990s saw substantial changes in this area, one of the most visible being an increase in the number of measures. At the beginning of the 1990s there were just three policy measures to cater for adult unemployed people in Sweden (vocational training, subsidised employment and employment support), whereas by 1998 a number of new measures had been implemented (Regnér 2000). The development in this respect has been similar in Finland. The fact that new measures have been created and that there are movements of people from one measure to another, creates some difficulties for a comparison. Here, to simplify matters, we divide the various policy measures into two categories: vocational training20 and subsidised employment.21
So in order to reach a meaningful comparison the number of participants in all the various almp measures during a year was compared to the number of people in the entire labour force. Comparing developments in Finland and Sweden, it can be seen there are variations in both levels and trends of this ratio (Figure 24). The difference in 1990 in the level of almp is clearly visible, with Sweden having far more participants in almp measures; in Sweden in 1990, the ratio was 3.1 compared to 1.8 in Finland.22 At the end of the period the ratio was higher in both countries: 5.9 in Sweden and 4.5 in Finland. While Sweden was still far ahead of Finland in terms of the scope of almp measures, it is worth noting that the difference between the countries narrowed over the period. For trends, the similarity for the period
20‘Arbetsmarknadsutbildning´ in Sweden and ‘työvoimakoulutus’ in Finland.
21For Sweden this category includes ‘beredskapsarbete, handikappåtgärder, rekryteringsstöd, ungdomsåtgärder, utbildningsvikariat, arbetslivsutveckling, datortek, arbetsplatsintroduktion, starta eget, kommunala program för ungdomar, offentligt tillfälligt arbete, individuellt anställningsstöd, resursarbete i offentlig verksamhet, projektarbete med
22As statistics on almp are based on the total number of participants in programmes during a year, the ratio used here should not be compared to e.g. unemployment rates, that give an average rate of unemployment during the year.
|80 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
measures as unemployment rose, although in Sweden the increase was much more pronounced.
The development since 1994 is especially interesting because of the disparities in the unemployment and employment trends. By the ratio measure, the volume of almp in Sweden decreased each year after 1994, while in Finland it continued to increase until 1997, despite the declining trend in unemployment from 1994. In other words, the difference is that in Sweden a stabilising unemployment situation was met with less efforts in activation. In Finland there was more emphasis on active measures while unemployment was decreasing.
Figure 24. Participation in active measures in Finland and Sweden
Sources: Finnish Labour Review
Figure 25 shows in a little more detail the development of almp participation in Finland for the years
The trend in Finland resulted from a clear policy choice: the government wanted to shift the emphasis to active measures and shift
|SOU 2000:83||Adaptation in social policy 81|
the balance of almp towards vocational training (Ministry of Labour 1999b:55).23 Comparing almp trends with unemployment trends, it can be seen that while unemployment has decreased since 1994, the volume of active measures has continued to increase.24 According to recent Finnish policy goals, almp will from now on follow unemployment trends with some minor adjustments in scope depending on the structure of unemployment (Ministry of Labour 1999b). The structural features of unemployment have been a key justification for continuing a high intensity of almp measures ( Oral information from Ministry of Labour 1999)
Figure 25: Participation at almp in Finland
Source: Finnish Labour Review
A similar figure for Swedish development trends shows that active measures in Sweden have been weighted towards subsidised employment (Figure 26). As indicated above, total almp measures decreased during the period
23Since 1997 there are more people starting training than entering subsidised employment (Ministry of Labour 1999).
24In the government programme for 1995 it was explicitly mentioned that almp are used to decrease unemployment and that the goal is to increase the share of
almp participants to 5 percent of the labour force.
|82 Adaptation in social policy||SOU 2000:83|
increased a little despite the drop in unemployment between 1997 and 1998.
Figure 26. Participation at almp in Sweden
|Ratio of participants per||in the labour force||6|
|Sources: SCB, Regnér 2000: Table 5.1.|
In conclusion, the figures presented seem to show that Finland and Sweden grew more similar over the period in terms of the total scope of almp. Although during the crisis years Sweden invested much more in almp than Finland, in the latter part of the period almp was emphasised relatively more in Finland. However, this does not mean almp have been abandoned in Sweden; on the contrary, compared to the situation in 1990 Sweden invested even more in activation in 1998. It is more that Finland has been able to catch up with Sweden due to a relatively low starting level. One could say that when it comes to the scope of activation measures, Finland became much more ”Nordic” during the decade, while Sweden remained the standard to follow. Yet a
5 Economic welfare
In this final section we examine changes in people’s welfare with a focus on three different dimensions: unemployment, income distribution and social assistance. Disparities in how unemployment problems were distributed in the population according to age and gender can be seen as indicators of welfare outcomes. In turn, data on income distribution reveal how overall inequality in income distribution developed among the population during and after the economic crisis, while more detailed breakdowns show how the crisis period affected disposable incomes of different categories of people. Finally, information on social assistance exposes another aspect of economic welfare: the adequacy of incomes to cover necessary expenditures. After the overall picture, breakdowns according to age and household type are presented.
5.1The distribution of unemployment
When assessing welfare state development during the 1990s, the sharp increase in unemployment to unprecedented levels is clearly the most striking factor. The persistent nature of the unemployment of the 1990s has had consequences for public budgets as well as for adaptation in social policy. Moreover, unemployment is not only problematic from a financing perspective, but also because it may have negative societal consequences for example related to social cohesion. Apart from these dimensions, unemployment itself may be used as an indicator of living conditions among the population. As a welfare indicator, not only the level, but also the distribution of unemployment across social categories are important.
Here, Eurostat employment statistics are used to obtain a comparable picture, even if they give slightly different information about the level of unemployment than national sources, and despite the lag in data production. Trends should be reliable, however. Unemployment is clearly higher for both men and women in Finland (Figure 27). As regards the development of unemployment rates for both sexes, a
|84 Economic welfare||SOU 2000:83|
certain similarity between Finland and Sweden can be detected. During the deepest economic crisis years unemployment affected men more than women in both countries. This is understandable given the description in section one of how unemployment hit industries in the private sector. With the recovery in the private sector in Finland, men’s unemployment rate started to drop, and judged by the
Figure 27. Unemployment rates for men and women in Finland and Sweden
Unemployment rate, %
Source: Employment in Europe 1998, 1996.
Note: figures for 1992 and 1993 taken from Employment in Europe 1996 publication, other figures from the 1998 publication. Figures vary somewhat in different yearly publications.
Looking at the development in unemployment by age one sees it is clearly
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 85|
Figure 28. Unemployment rates by age in Finland
Source: Finnish Labour Review
Figure 29. Unemployment rates by age in Sweden
|Source: Lundborg 2000.|
In the late 1980s Finland and Sweden had among the most even income distributions in the world (Atkinson, Rainwater and Smeeding 1995). While income inequality started to worsen in most Western countries with slightly differing timing in the 1970s and 1980s (as in Sweden), it
|86 Economic welfare||SOU 2000:83|
did not do so in Finland during the 1980s growth period (Atkinson, Rainwater and Smeeding 1995; Gustafsson et al. 1999). Even during the recession years the distribution of equivalent disposable income continued to be stable in Finland (Uusitalo 1997; Gustafsson et al. 1999). According to these sources the development trends during the 1980s and early 1990s were somewhat different for Finland and Sweden. Yet the latest data from the years after the economic recession show that income differences have indeed started to grow in Finland, too. So combining this information with the latest analyses from Sweden suggests the paths of Finland and Sweden are not that different after all.
In the following examination, data from Statistics Finland analysed by Uusitalo (1997, 1999) and from Statistics Sweden compiled for the ”Balance Sheet” commission (Jansson 2000) are compared to study income distribution trends. The figures presented here are drawn from national data calculated using different equivalence scales.1 The first figures display the development with the help of national equivalence scales. The figures portraying development according to socioeconomic groups, household types and age in the latter part of this section are drawn using a new equivalence scale as employed by Jansson (2000). The Finnish figures are calculated according to the socalled
1 Although there is agreement that it is important to be able to compare incomes between different households, and that this is best done using
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 87|
Figure 30 displays inequality in equivalent factor incomes (i.e. wage and capital income) in Sweden and Finland between 1991 and 1997.2 The trends look very similar; there is a clear tendency of increasing inequality in incomes in both countries when taxes and transfers are not taken into account. This is not a 1990s phenomenon, however, as inequality in factor incomes has increased
Sources: Statistics Finland data by Uusitalo 1999, SCB data by Jansson 2000.
From the point of view of the actual welfare of individuals, inequality in equivalent disposable income (factor income plus transfers minus taxes adjusted by the equivalence scale) is more important, and also interesting because it reveals the impact of the welfare state. Comparing disposable equivalent income, the relatively stable situation between 1991 and 1993 should first be noted. Since 1993 this relative stability has turned into a trend of increasing inequality in both countries. (Figure 31.)
2 For earlier development see Gustafsson et al. 1999. All time series presented here start from 1991 to avoid the effect of the 1990/91 tax reform in Sweden. There was a change in 1994 in the way income distribution statistics are compiled in Finland and therefore figures for
88 Economic welfare SOU 2000:83
Sources: Statistics Finland data by Uusitalo 1999, SCB data by Jansson 2000.
Overall, the figures (if one ignores the fluctuation for Sweden in 1994 caused by changes in taxation rules for realising capital gains) on income distribution show relatively similar trends for both Finland and Sweden when the latest data are added. In both countries income inequality increased, especially during the latter part of the period. It remains to be seen whether this is a phenomenon created by the economic recovery phase or if there is a more profound shift in progress. Yet, even if increasing differences emerge, it should be remembered that in international comparisons Finland and Sweden still have among the most equal income distributions in the world.
Moreover, the overall redistributive effect of the two welfare states looks quite similar (Figure 32). A closer look reveals that the redistributive effect of transfers is somewhat stronger in Sweden, whereas the redistributive effect of taxes accounts for a greater reduction in the
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 89|
Figure 32. Redistributive effect of transfers and income taxes in Finland and Sweden
|of gini||Income taxes, Finland|
|30||Income taxes, Sweden|
Sources: Statistics Finland data by Uusitalo 1999, SCB data by Jansson 2000.
In terms of the effects of the economic changes over the decade, it is vital to note that income inequality did not change during the period of the biggest economic problems and rapidly rising unemployment. Rather, income inequality started to increase after the recession, since the turnaround in the economy. This development can at least partly be explained by the role of transfers and taxes. At the time of the recession the redistributive role of transfers and taxes grew. The compensating impact of income transfers has been most important. Uusitalo (1997) has pointed out that even with the cutbacks in income transfers in Finland, their redistributive effect continued to increase (until 1994). This conclusion seems to apply to the Swedish situation, too. When the economy started to prosper again, factor incomes started to form a bigger part of the disposable income at the same time as the volume of transfers declined. Uusitalo (1999) explains this as partly an effect of decreasing unemployment and partly of cutbacks in transfers.
In Finland the growing differences in disposable income since 1995 result largely from an increase in disposable incomes among the tenth decile (10 percent of the population with the highest incomes). There is not much change for the lowest decile, and on average, disposable household equivalent income for all households has remained stable. The increase in incomes for the highest decile is mainly due to a marked increase in capital incomes (Figure 33).
|90 Economic welfare||SOU 2000:83|
Figure 33. Disposable average equivalent household incomes in Finland
Source: Uusitalo 1999.
A not fully comparable figure (Figure 34) for Sweden also shows that the increasing inequality is mainly due to a pronounced rise in incomes among the highest decile (at least for
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 91|
Figure 34. Disposable equivalent household incomes in Sweden (capital gains included),
Source: Jansson 2000.
Development based on
The above development is derived from aggregate data and deciles (the population divided into ten equal groups according to size of income). An examination based on population groupings reveals more about the development in different
Looking first at all
|92 Economic welfare||SOU 2000:83|
groups between 1996 and 1997, particularly among the
Figure 35. Disposable equivalent household income by
Source: Uusitalo 1999.
For Sweden, a table by Jansson (2000) reveals an overall picture where those outside the labour market – excluding
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 93|
Table 7. Disposable equivalent household income by
|of sickness benefits and|
|Source: Jansson 2000.|
Examining changes for different household categories, it seems that in Finland they have been very similar. There was a marked increase in incomes in
|94 Economic welfare||SOU 2000:83|
Figure 36. Disposable equivalent household income by household type in Finland
Source: Uusitalo 1999.
In contrast, it is interesting to note that for Sweden extracts from a table by Jansson (2000) show differences between the households (Table 8, see the original full table in Jansson 2000, Table 5). Although the different equivalence scales used should again be remembered, it is credible that single parents have the most negative situation and couples without children the highest incomes in both countries. The trends are a little different though, and show that the situation of single parents in relation to other households has deteriorated more in Sweden: the average disposable income of single parents decreased continuously from 1993 to 1997. Elderly couples in turn have increased their disposable incomes.
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 95|
Table 8. Disposable equivalent household income of some household types in Sweden
|Single without children,||102.6||100.2||95.4||93.6||97.7|
|Single without children,||101.3||102.6||101.1||103.0||104.1||2.8|
|Single parent with children||99.4||94.4||92.5||90.7||89.5|
|Cohabitant without children,||143.1||138.4||136.6||138.7||139.6|
|Cohabitant without children,||101.7||104.3||110.6||110.4||112.5||10.6|
|75 + years|
Source: Jansson 2000: table 5.
Finally, Table 8 also suggests that examining the development for different age groups reveals the biggest differences that occurred during the decade. Among the household data there are clear
|96 Economic welfare||SOU 2000:83|
Figure 37. Disposable equivalent household income for
Source: Uusitalo 1999.
Figure 38. Disposable equivalent household income for
Thousand SEK in 1999 prices
Source: Jansson 2000.
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 97|
Measuring income distribution reveals a broad picture of the development with regard to economic resources, but it is still only one of the measures available for examining developments in economic welfare. Incomes are of course important, but from the point of view of everyday life, expenditures also matter.
Although income distribution studies reveal a pattern of quite stable development and relatively little change, to understand changes in economic welfare it is import to know how the income distribution remained stable. Above, it was reported that during the early 1990s almost all decile groups,
Other measures are thus needed to supplement the picture of the development in economic welfare. In the absence of an accurate and commonly accepted measure of economic problems, social assistance is sometimes seen as an outcome indicator that reflects ”real” economic problems among the population. However, research has shown that social assistance should not be taken as an indicator of real economic need, as not all of those who would qualify for social assistance actually apply for it (Heikkilä 1990; Halleröd 1991). Moreover, it is known that not all social assistance recipients are ”poor” in the sense of relative poverty measures; different poverty measures do not necessarily overlap (Kangas and Ritakallio 1996).
While there seems to be a view that the social assistance system is rather more underused than overused, this has not been a hindrance to lively debates related to incentives. In addition to growth figures, issues such as support dependency and effects of the assistance system on incentives have become topical. The latest developments reveal that
|98 Economic welfare||SOU 2000:83|
changes are occurring here, too, partly motivated by the aim of discouraging supposed abuse of the system.3 Also, as the granting of social assistance is the responsibility of municipalities, there is wide variety in practices, levels and development in both countries. There is little known about the variety of practices, but according to the research available municipalities have tightened the rules for receiving social assistance in both countries (Mäntysaari and Maaniittu 1998; Bergmark 2000).
Here, the focus is first on development in both
Development in social assistance: number of recipients and expenditures
During the 1990s the number of social assistance recipients grew tremendously in both countries (Figure 39). In Finland the number almost doubled: 182 000 households were receiving social assistance in 1990, with 314 000 persons in these households compared to 610 000 (11.9 percent of the population) in 1996, which was the peak year for the numbers receiving social assistance during the year. In 1997 the number of individual assistance recipients fell slightly to 594 000. The first decrease in numbers for both households and individuals thus came between 1996 and 1997 (Social assistance 1997). The latest data (Stakes, forthcoming) confirm that the decline in social assistance
3 Lately, the activation of social assistance recipients has become topical in Finland, and the municipalities have been given the right to reduce the amount of if the assistance recipient does not accept activation measures. Since 1996 municipalities can reduce the basic amount of social assistance by 20 percent if the person refuses work or participation in almp measures. In 1998 the Finnish government implemented some changes in the basic benefit systems in order to shift some social assistance recipients out of
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 99|
recipients has continued. In 1998 there were 313 000 households and 535 000 persons; 10.4 percent of the Finns had received social assistance during the year.
In Sweden there was a similar increase in the number of persons and households receiving social assistance. In 1990 there were 517 000 persons receiving social assistance. As in Finland 1996 was the peak year, with 753 000 social assistance recipients (8.5 percent of the population). Numbers thereafter decreased to 692 000 persons in 1998 (7.7 percent of the Swedish population).
Figure 39. Social assistance in Finland and Sweden,
Persons per 100 inhabitants
Source: Socialstyrelsen 1998, Social assistance 1997, forthcoming data from Stakes.
Gross expenditure on social assistance has reflected this increase in both countries (Figure 40). In Finland expenditures almost tripled between 1990 and 1997: from 1 350 million FIM in 1990 (in 1997 prices) to 3 050 million FIM in 1997 (STM 1998:15).4 According to the statistics on municipality economy, 1998 was the first year in the decade that expenditures actually decreased: costs for social assistance
4 This is still only a small proportion (1.6 percent) of total social expenditure; in 1997 total social expenditure was 185 billion FIM (Social assistance 1997 1998:1). Yet the growth is also marked in percentage terms, as in 1990 the expenditure on social assistance accounted for 0.8 percent of all social expenditure.
|100 Economic welfare||SOU 2000:83|
in 1998 amounted to 2 767 million FIM (Statistics Finland), representing a substantial decline in expenditures. Likewise, expenditures in Sweden increased each year until 1997, again followed by a marked decrease in 1998.
Figure 40. Gross expenditure on social assistance in Finland and Sweden
Source: Socialstyrelsen 1998, Social assistance 1997, forthcoming data from Stakes, own calculations.
Note: Calculations based on gross expenditure according to national sources, for Sweden in million SEK in 1998 prices, for Finland in million FIM in 1997 prices, except the figure for 1998, which is in 1998 prices.
Although the main trends appear broadly similar, there are some interesting differences. Firstly, the increase in the number of social assistance recipients has been far more pronounced in Finland. From a relatively equal starting point in 1990, the growth recipients in Finland has been almost 100 percent, contrasting with 40 percent in Sweden (Bergmark 2000). Secondly, the proportion of social assistance recipients at the end of the period (1998) is considerably higher in Finland (10.4 percent) than in Sweden (7.7 percent). Thirdly, with 691 000 recipients during 1998 Sweden had a total expenditure of 11.4 billion SEK, while Finland with 534 000 recipients spent ”only” 2.8 billion FIM.
This major difference in expenditure calls for some explanations. Basically, costs are affected by the number of recipients, the average duration and the average sum of social assistance. As there are no major differences in the average duration of benefits (5.6 months in Sweden in 1997 and 5.8 months in Finland according to national sources), the difference lies in the average amount paid to recipients. In Finland the amount of social assistance paid to households has
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 101|
remained very stable over the period, despite the pronounced increase in total expenditures. In 1990 the average amount paid to each household per month was 1 622 FIM (in 1997 prices), and in 1997 1 658 FIM per month (Social assistance 1997:56). From the Swedish statistics on social assistance (Socialstyrelsen 1998), it can be calculated that the monthly assistance per household in Sweden in 1997 was around 5 600 SEK.
The far lower expenditures per household in Finland could perhaps partly be explained by the fact that many social assistance recipients only receive a small amount to top up their incomes from other sources. There is unfortunately no information on how many social assistance recipients are paid the full norm (2 047 FIM/month) and how many receive less than that. Some clues for assessing this are provided by statistics showing that 77 percent of social assistance recipients also received other benefits.
If it is the case that there are more ”fully dependent” social assistance receivers in Sweden than in Finland, there is justification for looking at differences in the primary support systems. An obvious candidate here is the universality of the unemployment insurance system. In Finland the unemployment security system covers almost 100 percent of the unemployed, offering at least some basic income even to those without a work history and no membership of an unemployment fund. According to statistics from the Ministry of Labour, there were 372 400 unemployed
Furthermore, there is certainly a difference in the ethnic composition of social assistance receivers. In Sweden almost half of the expenditures for social assistance system are paid out to people with other than a Swedish background; refugees alone account for almost a fifth. There are no data based on the ethnic dimension for Finland.
|102 Economic welfare||SOU 2000:83|
Development according to age and household type
Next we move from the broad development patterns to examine differences in how social assistance recipiency is spread across the population. Table 9 shows how social assistance recipients are divided among age groups. The developments look very similar. Social assistance has especially become more common among young persons aged 18 to 24 years in both countries. On the other hand, towards the end of the decade the decrease in social assistance recipiency became more pronounced for this age group. Also, the share of recipients aged
Table 9. Households receiving social assistance by reference person’s age in Finland and Sweden 1990 and 1998. Percent of populations in each age group
|65 + years||7.3||5.1||6.4||5.9|
Source: SOU 2000:3, Social assistance 1997, forthcoming data from Stakes and own calculations.
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 103|
Table 10. Households receiving social assistance by reference person’s age in Finland and Sweden, 1998, percent of age group
Sources: Socialstyrelsen 1998 table 14 for Sweden, forthcoming statistics from Stakes for Finland.
Looking at the development by household type in the national statistics one can see how receipt of social assistance became more common across the board. Yet the most marked growth occurred for single households in both countries (SOU
|104 Economic welfare||SOU 2000:83|
Table 11. Households receiving social assistance by type of household in Finland and Sweden, 1990 and 1998. Percent of all households of each type receiving social assistance
|Single men without||39.0||38.3||37.6||36.1|
|Single women without||24.5||25.6||22.3||25.5|
|Single men with||1.3||1.1||2.2||1.9|
|Single women with||10.9||9.9||17.7||15.5|
|Couples with children||14.2||13.7||14.5||14.9|
Source: SOU 2000:3, Social assistance 1997 forthcoming data and own calculations.
Comparing the shares of different household types receiving assistance (Table 12), some variations between Finland and Sweden can be seen. In Finland there are higher proportions of assistance recipients among single men without children, couples without children and couples with children. The shares for single women without children are similar. The main difference seems to be in the share of single parents. Unfortunately, due to reporting differences a breakdown by gender is not available for Finland (share in Sweden 32.3 percent for women with children plus 12.4 percent for men with children, while the sum for both sexes is 31.3 percent in Finland).
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 105|
Table 12. The share of social assistance recipients among different household types in Finland and Sweden, 1998, percent of household types
|Finland 1998||Sweden 1998|
|Single men without children||19.4||13.6|
|Single women without children||12.0||12.6|
|Single men with children||31,3a||12.4|
|Single women with children||32.3|
|Couples without children||5.9||2,2|
|Couples with children||9.6||6.0|
Source: SOU 2000:3, Social assistance 1997, forthcoming data and own calculations.
Note: a the figure 31.3 for Finland is for men and women.
Unemployment and social assistance
Unemployment has clearly been the main factor underlying social assistance benefits, and the developments of the early 1990s certainly provide ample reasons for the growth in social assistance recipiency. Both unemployment and social assistance recipiency are pronounced among the young.
To contrast the
|106 Economic welfare||SOU 2000:83|
Figure 41. Unemployment rate and share of social assistance recipients in Finland
Source: Social assistance 1997, forthcoming statistics from Stakes, Labour Statistics 1997.
Figure 42. Unemployment rate and share of social assistance recipients in Sweden
Source: AKU, Socialstyrelsen 1999, Bergmark 2000.
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 107|
17.3 percent declared unemployment benefits as their main source of livelihood. By contrast, in November 1997 there were over 146 000 such households, of which 52.6 percent declared unemployment benefits as their main source of livelihood. (Social assistance 1997:59.) This information appears to confirm that social assistance has become a system to supplement inadequate unemployment security (Mäntysaari and Maaniittu 1997).5
In conclusion, although the basic principles of the social assistance systems in Finland and Sweden in terms of their status as a
Although there are fever social assistance recipients as percentage of the population in Sweden, the overall expenditures per recipient are much higher. In other words, fewer need more in Sweden. It was suggested that some explanations could be found in the institutional differences in the unemployment insurance system and the housing
5 In Finland there are two forms of unemployment assistance for those who are not members of unemployment funds: basic unemployment allowance and labour market support. These assistance forms provide an income which is very close to the guaranteed minimum income norm of social assistance (the norm is 2 047 FIM/month for a single person). On top of this basic allowance, most benefit recipients probably need housing allowance. However, as the housing allowance is meant to cover only 80 percent of the housing costs, it is likely that the basic unemployment allowance or the labour market support minus 20 percent of the housing costs will result in a disposable income less than the social assistance norm, and therefore many seek additional support from social assistance. As it is less likely that those with an
|108 Economic welfare||SOU 2000:83|
allowance system. On the other hand, the share of social assistance recipients in Finland is higher, but the expenditures are significantly lower. It was suggested that compared to Sweden more Finnish people need to top up their incomes from other sources to make ends meet. Developments in social assistance may then be seen as an indicator of how the rest of the social security system is operating. From a policy perspective this assessment could be interpreted as Sweden having bigger gaps in the coverage of its social insurance system, while the shortcoming in Finland seems more to be related to compensation rates and/or the level of minimum benefits. It is quite possible that in addition to growth in unemployment per se, cutbacks in the compensation rates and coverage of cash benefits have resulted in increases in the number of social assistance recipients, but the relationship is certainly not a simple one, and very little research has so far been done on it.
5.4Balance sheet on changes in economic welfare
It may be concluded from this section that the way unemployment was divided between men and women and between different age groups in Finland and Sweden shows similarities. In both countries unemployment hit the young hardest.
The overall result of the comparison of income distribution trends suggests that in both countries the years of recession passed by with surprisingly minor changes in income inequality. In both countries income inequality has increased since the
A more detailed breakdown of income distribution trends for different
|SOU 2000:83||Economic welfare 109|
development for different household types was also more similar in Finland, although comparability is not the best possible here. True, in Finland single parents stand out, but less clearly than in Sweden. It is also less easy to identify winners in Finland. In terms of income distribution by age the young seem to be the clear losers in both countries.
While the comparison of income distribution did not reveal big differences between the countries, the examination of developments in social assistance showed Finland in a much worse light. The number of people forced to resort to
6 Concluding remarks
This report has aimed to provide the reader with comparable information about the nature of the 1990s economic crisis in Finland and Sweden, and the consequent policy adaptations and developments in economic welfare of the two populations. This final section gives a summary of the data and findings.
A broadly similar development pattern…
Overall, the report suggests the economic crisis of the 1990s may be divided into three phases. The economic crisis turned into an employment crisis, which in the third phase transformed into problems in public financing. Generally this pattern seems to hold for both countries. Although both the economic and employment crises emerged from similar seeds and at the same time, the employment problems have turned out to be a more persistent phenomenon; by 1998 employment rates had still not recovered to the level prior to the
|112 Concluding remarks||SOU 2000:83|
recession, income inequality did not increase overall. This is partly explainable by the even distribution of economic misfortunes and unemployment across the population, and partly by the compensating impact of the welfare state, above all in the form of income transfers. Nevertheless, if social assistance is taken as an indicator of problems in making ends meet, falls in disposable incomes forced a growing section of the population to rely on last resort public support in both countries.
…with national peculiarities
While this can now be described as the general pattern of the development for both countries during the 1990s, the report has also aimed to present more accurate and specific data, in order to allow differences within this broad picture to be identified. The Introduction provided a working hypothesis on what to expect about the differences when developments between the two countries are compared (The working hypothesis was summarised in Table 1).
The report addressed the three dimensions in the table in separate sections, while attempting to delve deeper into the component aspects. Firstly, according to the findings, the economic crisis can be divided into three aspects: an economic, employment and public financing crisis. Secondly, policy reactions were scrutinised from various angles starting with a
Addressing first the nature of the economic crisis, dividing it into three elements makes it possible to distinguish differences in the severity of the crisis. Clearly, Finland experienced a much steeper
|SOU 2000:83||Concluding remarks 113|
for both countries. As the magnitude of economic problems was not clearly related to the employment and public financing problems, it was suggested that differences between the countries in existing policy and in the capacity to adjust to shocks could be fruitful areas for closer examination.
Turning secondly to policy reactions one can argue that although balancing of public budgets was by and large achieved in five years in both countries, the way this adjustment took place differed. Finland seems to have been quicker than Sweden to initiate cutbacks in 1992, and continued them with undiminished vigour in the latter part of the decade. The estimates for 1999 and 2000 show that the countries seem to be diverging somewhat, with Finland continuing a tighter budget policy. Although Sweden also introduced cutbacks in
The examination of social protection expenditures showed how unemployment forced social protection expenditures to soar in Finland. By 1993 the share of income transfers as percentage of GDP had increased from 13 % to 23 %, and Finland was on equal terms with Sweden. The
Surprisingly, the comparison of expenditure and personnel development in elderly care services and childcare services revealed more minor reductions in Finland than Sweden, although the large disparities in starting levels should be remembered here. In both countries the trends in service outputs did not favour the elderly. Institutional care was reduced in relation to the elderly population and home help was subject to heavy cutbacks. By the end of the period Finland had become more like Sweden in terms of coverage. In contrast, the number of places for children in public
|114 Concluding remarks||SOU 2000:83|
which at the beginning of the period already had much higher
In the fourth policy area adopted for comparison, the volume of active labour market policies during
Thirdly, there were many similarities in developments in economic welfare. The way unemployment was divided between men and women and between different age groups showed a rather similar pattern in Finland and Sweden. In both countries unemployment became more noticeably a problem for the young and the men, but since the recession years these groups have been able to improve their situation. Looking at the development in incomes, the years of recession went by with surprisingly minor changes in income inequality among the populations at large, though. In both countries income inequality has increased since the
What about the working hypothesis?
Contrasting these findings with our working hypothesis shows that the reality displays more nuances; a more detailed comparison would doubtless add further detail and variety to our conclusions. Nevertheless, on the basis of this report it seems justified to draw three conclusions concerning our working hypothesis.
First, what seems important, at least when further discussing public policies, is that the economic recession years, maybe through different
|SOU 2000:83||Concluding remarks 115|
processes and mechanisms, led to equally severe problems of employment and problems for the public economies of both countries.
Second, while on the basis of overall policy adaptation one could be tempted to argue that Finland carried out more considerable cutbacks, on closer look no simple assessment regarding mildness or harshness of policy reactions can be given as the judgement ultimately seems to depend on the sphere of investigation. For instance, on the basis of this report one could
Finally, it could be argued that the expectation of more uneven development in economic welfare in Finland did not receive unqualified support from this report. Even with deeper
Are Finland and Sweden still two of a kind?
Finally, in the light of these findings, can Finland and Sweden still be considered as ”two of a kind”, and what do the trends of the 1990s reveal about the ”Nordicness” of the two countries? To answer these questions comprehensively would ultimately need a fuller comparison encompassing countries outside the Nordic grouping, too. A more complete description of differences in levels would be helpful in such a task, not to speak of effective methodological solutions to assess conformity.
|116 Concluding remarks||SOU 2000:83|
Still, an overall conclusion based solely on this report is that
Yet some objections to this conclusion stressing similarity are also evident, although perhaps not yet strong enough to challenge it. Regarding social policy adjustment we lack a more detailed comparison of developments in the income protection sphere, but the trends during the latter years suggest that cutbacks in social security in Finland were rougher and have, together with rapid economic growth, been efficient enough to quickly reduce the social protection expenditure level close to the EU average. The fact that Finland still has one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe and that 10 % of the population have received social assistance during a year calls into question the extent to which Finland and Sweden remain two of a kind; at least the gap between them has grown in these respects during the last few years. It is interesting that in some respects developments especially after the economic crisis years display divergence.
On the other hand, there are examples of changes, which would appear to distort the ideal typical picture. While full employment has sometimes been regarded as one of the cornerstones of the Nordic model, the 1990s have seen anything but. Here we cannot judge whether the countries differed in their will to promote employment, nor whether there occurred a change in emphasis. What is clear is that cracks in this cornerstone forced governments to consider the whole spectrum of their social policy measures. It seems one consequence of the changes during the 1990s has been that the principle of univer-
|SOU 2000:83||Concluding remarks 117|
salism is now weaker than before after adjustments made in both the cash transfer side and to services.1 The universalism of policies can be questioned by the extent of the targeted
Evidently then, no straightforwardly simple ”yes” or ”no” answer to the question of whether Finland and Sweden have lost some of their Nordicness can be given, as we see somewhat differing trends in various policy areas. Here, too, the answer depends on our judgements about what we consider to be the important dimensions.
1 Yet in comparison to developments in other European countries Nordic distinctiveness in transfers and services seems to have persisted (e.g. Clasen et al. forthcoming; Lehto and Rostgaard forthcoming).
Abrahamsson, P., 1999. ”The Welfare Modelling Business”, Social Policy & Administration, 33
Adema, W., M. Einerhand., B. Eklind., J. Lotz & M. Pearson, 1996. Net Public Social Expenditure. Labour market and social policy occasional papers n. 19. Paris: OECD.
Agell, J., 1996. ”Why Sweden’s Welfare State Needed Reform”, The Economic Journal, 106 (November),
Alber, J., 1988. ”Is There a Crisis of the Welfare State?
Alestalo, M. & H. Uusitalo, 1986. ”Finland” in P. Flora (ed.), Growth to Limits. Vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
Andersson, J. O., P. Kosonen & J. Vartiainen, 1993. ”The Finnish Model of Economic and Social Policy – From Emulation to Crash”, Åbo: Meddelanden från
Anttonen, A. & J. Sipilä, 1996. ”European Social Services: Is it Possible to Identify Models?” Journal of European Social Policy
Atkinson, A.B., L. Rainwater & T.M. Smeeding, 1995. Income Distribution in OECD Countries. OECD Social Policy Studies No. 18. Paris: OECD.
Baldersheim, H. & K. Ståhlberg, 1998. Perspektiv på regioner i Norden (Perspective on Regions in the Nordic Countries). Kommunenes sentralforbund forskning. Åbo: Åbo Akademins tryckeri.
|120 References||SOU 2000:83|
Bergmark, Å., 2000. ”Socialbidragen under
Birch Sørensen, P. (ed), 1998. Tax Policy in the Nordic Countries. London: Macmillan Press.
Castles, F.G., 1998. Comparative Public Policy. Patterns of
Castles, F. G. & D. Mitchell, 1990. Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism or Four? Australian National University, Discussion Paper 21. Canberra: ANU.
Castles, F.G. (ed), 1993. Families of Nations: Patterns of Public Policy in Western Democracies. Dartmouth:
Clasen, J., J. Kvist & W. van Oorschot, (forthcoming). ”On Condition of Work: Increasing Work Requirements in Unemployment Compensation Schemes” in M. Kautto, J. Fritzell, J. Kvist, B. Hvinden & H. Uusitalo (eds), Nordic Welfare States in the European Context, London: Routledge.
Drøpping, J.A., B. Hvinden & K. Vik, 1999. ”Activation Policies in the Nordic Countries” in M. Kautto, M. Heikkilä, B. Hvinden, S. Marklund & N. Ploug (eds), Nordic Social Policy: Changing Welfare States, London: Routledge.
Ds, 1999:61. Samhällets stöd till de äldre i Europa (Public Expenditure for the Eldery in Europe). Report to ESO by M. Medelberg, Å. Fossell, M. Axén Andersson & D. Ljungberg. Stockholm: Ministry of Finance.
Elovainio, M. & T. Sinervo, 1997. ”Sosiaalija terveydenhuollon henkilöstön hyvinvoinnin kehitys”
European Commission, 1996. Employment in Europe. Com (96) 485. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Employment and Social Affairs.
|SOU 2000:83||References 121|
European Commission, 1998. Employment in Europe. Com (98) 666. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Employment and Social Affairs.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ferrera, M., 1996. ”The ”Southern Model” of Welfare in Social Europe”. Journal of European Social Policy
Finnish Labour Review
Flora, P. (ed.), 1986. Growth to Limits. The Western European Welfare States Since World War II, vol. 1: Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Freeman, R. B., B. Swedenborg & R. Topel, 1995. Välfärdsstat i omvandling (The Changing Welfare State). Stockholm: SNS Förlag.
Fritzell, J. (forthcoming), ”Still Different? Income Distribution in the Nordic Countries in a European Comparison” in M. Kautto, J. Fritzell, J. Kvist, B. Hvinden & H. Uusitalo (eds), Nordic Welfare States in the European Context. London: Routledge.
Fritzell, J., 1999. ”Changes in the Social Patterning of Living Conditions” in M. Kautto, M. Heikkilä, B. Hvinden, S. Marklund, N. Ploug (eds), Nordic Social Policy. Changing Welfare States. London: Routledge.
|122 References||SOU 2000:83|
Gustafsson, B., R. Aaberge, Å. Cappelen, P.J. Pedersen, N. Smith & H. Uusitalo, 1999. ”The Distribution of Income in the Nordic Countries” in M. Kautto, M. Heikkilä, B. Hvinden, S. Marklund & N. Ploug (eds), Nordic Social Policy. Changing Welfare States. London: Routledge.
Halleröd, B., 1991. Den svenska fattigdomen: en studie av fattigdom och socialbidragstagande ( Poverty in Sweden: A Study on Poverty and Social Assistance). Lund: Arkiv.
Halleröd, B. & M. Heikkilä, 1999. ”Poverty and Social Exclusion in the Nordic Countries” in M. Kautto, M. Heikkilä, B. Hvinden, S. Marklund & N. Ploug (eds), Nordic Social Policy. Changing Welfare States. London: Routledge.
Heikkilä, M., 1990. Köyhyys ja
(Poverty and Deprivation in a Welfare State). Sosiaalihallituksen julkaisuja 8/1990. Helsinki: VAPK.
Heikkilä, M. & H. Uusitalo (eds), 1997. The Cost of Cuts. Studies on Cutbacks in Social Security and Their Effects in the Finland of the 1990s. Saarijärvi: Gummerus.
Hoem, B., 2000. ”Utan jobb – inga barn? Fruktsamhetsutvecklingen under
United Nations Development Programme, (UNDP), 1998. Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.
IMF, 1999a. Sweden: Selected Issues. IMF Staff Country Report No
IMF, 1999b. Finland: Selected Issues. IMF Staff Country Report No
Jansson, K., 2000. ”Inkomstfördelningen under
|SOU 2000:83||References 123|
Johansson, H., 2000. ”Ungdomar med socialbidrag – ett politiskt problem för
Jonung, L., 1999. Med backspegeln som kompass – om stabiliseringspolitiken som läroprocess (Looking Ahead Through the
Kangas, O., 1993. ”The Finnish Welfare State – A Scandinavian Welfare State?” in P. Kosonen (ed.), The Nordic Welfare State as Myth and as Reality. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Kangas, O., 1994. ”The Merging of Welfare State Models? Past and Present Trends in Finnish and Swedish Social Policy”. Journal of European Social Policy, 4
Kangas, O. &
Turun yliopisto, sosiaalipolitiikan laitos. Stakes, Tutkimuksia (Research reports) 65.
Karvonen, L., 1981. "Med vårt västra grannland som förebild" en undersökning av policydiffusion från Sverige till Finland (Our Western Neighbour as an Example. A Study on Policy Diffusion from Sweden to Finland). Akademisk avhandling, Meddelanden från stiftelsens för Åbo Akademi forskningsinstitut nr 62.
Kauppinen, S., 1999. Den privata socialservicen 1998 (Private Social Services in Finland). Stakes
Kautto, M., M. Heikkilä, B. Hvinden, S. Marklund, & N. Ploug (eds), 1999. Nordic Social Policy. Changing Welfare States. London: Routledge.
Keskitalo, E. & M. Heikkilä, 1999. Vuoden 1998 perusturvamuutosten vaikutukset – Arviointitutkimuksen väliraportti
|124 References||SOU 2000:83|
Kiander, J., 1997. ”Kysyntätekijät ja työttömyys
Kansantaloustieteellinen aikakauskirja 93
Kiander, J., 1999. ”Talouspolitiikka
Talous & Yhteiskunta 27
Kiander, J. & P. Vartia, 1998. Suuri lama – Suomen
Kohl, J., 1981. ”Trends and Problems in Postwar Public Expenditure Development in Western Europe and North America” in P. Flora & A.J. Heidenheimer (eds.), The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America. New Brunswick: Transaction Books,
Koistinen, P., 1994. Kilpailevia ratkaisuja työllisyyteen: Suomen ja Ruotsin työmarkkinoiden ja työvoimapolitiikan vertailua lamavuosina
Korpi, W., 1996. ”Eurosclerosis and the Sclerosis of Objectivity: On the Role of Values Among Economic Policy Experts”. The Economic Journal, 106 (November),
Korpi, W. & J. Palme, 1998. ”The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in the Western Countries”. American Sociological Review,
Kosonen, P., 1993. ”The Finnish Model and the Welfare State in Crisis” in P. Kosonen (ed), The Nordic Welfare State as a Myth and as Reality. Renvall Institute Publications 5. Helsinki: University Printing House.
Kosonen, P., 1996. Eurooppalaiset hyvinvointivaltiot (European Welfare States). Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
|SOU 2000:83||References 125|
Kosonen, P., 1998. Pohjoismaiset mallit murroksessa (Nordic Models at a Period of Rupture). Tampere: Vastapaino.
Kosunen, V., 1997. ”The Recession and Changes in Social Security in the 1990s” in M. Heikkilä & H. Uusitalo (eds.), The Cost of Cuts: Studies on Cutbacks in Social Security and Their Effects in the Finland of the 1990s. Saarijärvi: Gummerus.
Kurri, S. & H. Loikkanen, 1998. Kuntien rahoitus: periaatteita ja kansainvälinen vertailu, keskustelualoitteita (Financing of Municipalities: Principles and an International Comparison). Helsinki: Valtion taloudellinen tutkimuskeskus.
Kvist, J., 1999. ”Welfare Reform in the Nordic Countries in the 1990s: Using Fuzzy Set Theory to Assess Conformity to Ideal Types”,
Journal of European Social Policy,
Labour Statistics,1997. Results of the Labour Force Survey from the Years
Lehto, J., 1995. ”Adaptation or a New Strategy? Finnish Local Welfare State in the 1990’s” in Finnish Local Government in Transition, The Finnish Association of Local Government Studies, no 4.
Lehto, J., 1997. ”Rahoituksen ja rakenteen muutoksia sosiaalija terveyspalveluissa” (Changes in Financing and Structures of the Social and Health Care Services) in H. Uusitalo & M. Staff (eds)
Sosiaalija terveydenhuollon palvelukatsaus 1997 (Survey of Social and Health Care Services in Finland in 1997). Report 214. Jyväskylä: Stakes.
Lehto, J., 1999. ”Universal right to public social and health care services?” In Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Nordic Europe and France. Copenhagen conference, MIRE volume 4. Paris:
Lehto, J., N. Moss, & T. Rostgaard, 1999. ”Universal Public Social Care and Health Services?” in M. Kautto, M. Heikkilä, B. Hvinden, S. Marklund & N. Ploug (eds), Nordic Social Policy. Changing Welfare States. London: Routledge.
|126 References||SOU 2000:83|
Leibfried, S., 1992. ”Towards a European Welfare State? On Integrating Poverty Regimes into the European Community” in Z. Ferge & J.E. Kolberg (eds), Social Policy in a Changing Europe. European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research. Colorado: Westview Press.
Lundborg, P., 2000. ”Vilka förlorade jobbet under
Mahoney, J., 1999. ”Nominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisal in Macrocausual Analysis”. American Journal of Sociology, 104 ( 4): 1154 - 96
Marklund, S., 1988. Paradise Lost? The Nordic Welfare States and the Recession
Marklund, S., 1995. ”Sosiaalipolitiikan asema valtion budjetissa. Suomen ja Ruotsin tilanteen vertailua” (Social Policy in State Budgets. Comparing Finland and Sweden). Janus 3 (1995):4.
Ministry of Finance, 1999. Information submitted to the author on the Swedish consolidation programme, public sector revenues and expenditures and distribution of savings measures between different sectors on 22nd November 1999. Stockholm: Ministry of Finance.
Ministry of Finance, 1999a. Kansantalouden ja valtiontalouden näkymät vuosina
Ministry of Finance, 1999b. Taskubudjetti,
Pocketbudget, the Budget Proposal for 2000). Helsinki: Ministry of
Ministry of Labour, 1999a. Työllisyyskertomus vuodelta 1998 (Report on Employment 1998). Työhallinnon julkaisu 222. Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.
Ministry of Labour, 1999b. EU:n työllisyyssuuntaviivojen mukainen Suomen työllisyyspolitiikan toimintasuunnitelma, toukokuu 1999. Työhallinnon julkaisu 226. Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.
|SOU 2000:83||References 127|
Mäki, T., A. Romppanen, & M. Viren, 1999. Julkisen velan hallinta eräissä
Mäntysaari, M. & M. Maaniittu, 1997.
NOSOSCO, 1999. Social tryghed i de nordiske lande 1997. Omfang, udgifter og finansiering 1997 (Social Secutiry in the Nordic Countries. Scope, Expenditure and Financing). Nososco, 1998:123. Nordisk Socialstatistisk Komité 99:11, Copenhagen.
NOSOSCO, 2000. Social tryghed i de nordiske lande 1998. Omfang, udgifter og finansiering 1998 (Social Security in the Nordic Countries 1998. Scope, Expenditure and Financing 1998). Nososco, Nordisk Socialstatistisk Komité, Copenhagen.
OECD, 1998. Main Economic Indicators. Historical Statistics 1960– 1997.
OECD, 1999. Social Expenditure Data.
OECD, 1999. Olis database, Summer 1999 update. An electronic database. Paris: OECD.
Oulasvirta, L., 1990. Valtionapupolitiikka pohjoismaissa. Vertaileva tutkimus Suomen, Ruotsin, Norjan ja Tanskan valtionapujärjestelmistä ja valtiokunta – suhteista (State Subsidies in the Nordic Countries). Kunnallistieteen laitos. Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto.
Palme, J., 2000. ”Socialförsäkringar och kontanta familjestöd” (Social Security and Family Cash Benefits) in Å. Bergmark (ed), Välfärd och försörjning. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Palme, J. & I. Wennemo, 1998. Swedish Social Security in the 1990s: Reform and Retrenchment. Välfärdsprojektet. Stockholm: Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.
|128 References||SOU 2000:83|
Pekkarinen, J. & J. Vartiainen, 1993. Suomen talouspolitiikan pitkä linja (Finnish Economic Policy in a
Pierson, P., 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State. Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ploug, N., 1999. ”Cuts in and Reform of the Nordic Cash Benefit Systems” in M. Kautto, M. Heikkilä, B. Hvinden, S. Marklund, N. & Ploug (eds), Nordic Social Policy. Changing Welfare States. London: Routledge.
Ploug, N. & J. Kvist, 1996. Social Security in Europe: Development or Dismantlement? The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Pohjola, M., 1994. ”Huonoa politiikkaa vai huonoa onnea? Kansantaloutemme kriisi kasvututkimusten valossa” (Bad Policies or Bad Luck? The Economic Crisis in the Light of Growth Studies).
Kansantaloudellinen aikakauskirja 91: 4.
Regnér, H., 2000. Ändrade förutsättningar för arbetsmarknadspolitiken? (Changing Preconditions for Labour Policies?) in Fritzell, J. (ed), Välfärdens förutsättningar, Arbetsmarknad, demografi och segregation, SOU 2000:37. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Rostgaard, T. & T. Fridberg, 1998. Caring for Children and Older People – A Comparison of European Policies and Practices, Social Security in Europe 6, Copenhagen: The Danish National Institute of Social Research 98:20.
Rostgaard, T. & J. Lehto, (forthcoming). ”Health and Social Care Systems: How Different is the Nordic Model?” in M. Kautto, J. Fritzell, J. Kvist, B. Hvinden & H. Uusitalo (eds), Nordic Welfare States in the European Context, London: Routledge.
Salminen, K., 1993. Pension Schemes in the Making:A Comparative Study of the Scandinavian Countries, Helsinki: Central Pension Security Institute.
|SOU 2000:83||References 129|
Sandberg, S. & K. Ståhlberg, 2000. Nordisk
Salonen, T. 2000. ”Ungdomars socialbidragstagande och försörjningssvårigheter under
Sauramo, P., 1991. ”Verta, hikeä ja kyyneleitä – miksi?” (Blood, Sweat and Tears – Why?). Kansantaloudellinen aikakauskirja
Sipilä, J., 1997. Social Care Services: The Key to the Scandinavian Model. Aldershot: Avebury.
Socialdepartementet, 1999. Välfärdsfakta Social – sammanställning av fakta/nyckeltal inom välfärdsområdet. (Welfare Facts – A Compilation of Key Figures in the Social Field),
Social assistance,1997. Sosiaaliturva 1998:3, Helsinki: Stakes.
Socialstyrelsen, 1998. Socialbidrag 1997. Stockholm: Nordstedts AB.
Socialstyrelsen, 1999. Socialbidrag 1998. Stockholm: Nordstedts AB.
SOU, 2000:3. Välfärd vid vägskäl, utvecklingen under
(Welfare at Crossroads, the Development in the 1990s). A interim report from the governmental commission A Balance Sheet for Welfare of the 1990s. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Stakes, (forthcoming). Toimeentulotukitilasto (Social Assistance
Stakes, 1999. Toimeentulotukitilastilasto (Social Assistance Statistics).
Stakes Statistics, Various statistics provided by Stakes to the author on child care, elderly care and health care between November 1999 and February 2000.
|130 References||SOU 2000:83|
STM, 1998. Sosiaaliturvan suunta
SVT, 1998. Sosiaaliturva Suomessa 1996 (Social Protection in Finland
1996). Sosiaalija terveysministeriö, talousja suunnitteluosasto.
Szebehely, M., 1998. ”Changing Divisions of Carework: Caring for Children and Frail Elderly People in Sweden” in J. Lewis (ed),
Gender, Social Care and Welfare State Restructuring in Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Szebehely, M., 1999. Caring for Frail Older Persons in Scandinavia: the Impact of Moving Borders Between Traditional Institutions and Care at Home. Report for the OECD (second draft, June 1999).
Szebehely, M., 2000. ”Äldreomsorgen i förändring – knappare resurser och nya organisationsformer” (Eldery Care – Fewer Reources and New Forms of Organisation) in M. Szebehely (ed), Välfärd, vård och omsorg, SOU 2000: 38. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Tson Söderström, H., 1993. ”Finland’s Economic Crisis:causes, Present Nature and Policy Options” in C. Bordes, D.Currie & H. Tson Söderström (eds), Three Assessments of Finland’s Economic Crisis and Economic Policy. Helsinki: Bank of Finland.
Tarkka, J., 1994. ”Ulkoisten tekijöiden merkitys Suomen talouskriisissä” (External Factors in the Finnish Economic Crisis).
Taskinen, S. & A. Muuri, 1997. ”Lasten huolenpitopalvelut” (Care Services for Children) in H. Uusitalo & M. Staff (eds), Sosiaalija terveydenhuollon palvelukatsaus 1997. Report 214. Jyväskylä: Gummerus.
TemaNord, 1997. “Fiscal Consolidation in the Nordic Countries. Fiscal Policy for Sustainable Growth and Welfare.” TemaNord,
|SOU 2000:83||References 131|
Uusitalo, H., 1997. ”Four Years of Recession: What Happened to Income Distribution?” in M. Heikkilä, M. & H. Uusitalo (eds), The Cost of Cuts. Studies on Cutbacks in Social Security and Their Effects in the Finland of the 1990s. Helsinki: Stakes.
Uusitalo, H., 1999. ”Tuloerot kasvaneet jo kolmena peräkkäisenä vuonna” (Third Year of Growth in Income Differences),
Vaarama, M. & A. Noro, 1997. ”Vanhusten sosiaalija terveyspalvelut”(Social and Health Care Services for the Eldery) in H. Uusitalo & M. Staff (eds), Sosiaalija terveydenhuollon palvelukatsaus 1997. Report 214, Stakes. Jyväskylä: Gummerus.
Vartiainen, J., 1996. ”Kansantalous – valtiota vai kansalaisia varten?” (National Economy – for the State or for theCitizens?). Helsingin Sanomat, kuukausiliite, huhtikuu.
Vartiainen, J., 1998. ”Understanding Swedish Social Democracy: Victims of Success?” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14
VM, 1998. Julkisen talouden näkymiä ja haasteita. (Perspectives and Challenges for the Public Economy). Valtiovarainministeriö, Taloudelliset ja talouspoliittiset katsaukset 3/98. Helsinki: Edita.
Wadensjö, E., 1999.
Åberg, R. & M. Nordenmark, 2000. ”Arbetslöshet och levnadsvillkor under