The Nordic Welfare Model in the Twenty-First Century: The Bumble-Bee Still Flies!

Abstract

The Nordic countries are admired for high employment, low levels of poverty and inequality, encompassing welfare states, and peaceful industrial relations. Yet the model is criticised for hampering the employment opportunities of vulnerable groups. The literature identifies several potential mechanisms of exclusion. Compressed wage structures may make employers reluctant to hire certain workers for fear that their productivity is too low to justify the cost. Second, generous benefits lower individuals’ incentive to work. Third, businesses increasingly specialise in high-skill activities. We explore these arguments comparatively by considering the employment chances of two vulnerable groups: disabled persons and migrants. The Nordic countries are compared with other rich democracies that take different approaches to social protection and wage dispersion. The Nordic countries do not perform systematically worse than other ‘varieties of capitalism’. In line with recent research, we also find that there is considerable intra-Nordic variation, which calls for further study.

Employment and attendance in day care centres for people with mild intellectual disabilities – do age, gender, functional level or hospital admissions matter?

“…Additionally, our findings support the previous literature: The gap between policy and practice in employment for people with mild IDs still exists (Hvinden 2004;Halvorsen et al 2016;Kuznetsova et al 2017). This may be because most people with IDs receive a disability pension without an assessment of functional level, are never in contact with service providers, and no consideration of workability is performed.…”

“…The clear association between not being employed or attending day care centres and not having one's functional level registered implies there is a need for increased focus on how to enhance work participation However, there is a gap between policy and practice in employment and participation in day care for people with IDs, reflected in the relatively low rates of people employed or in day care in Norway (Hvinden 2004;Halvorsen et al 2016;Kuznetsova et al 2017). Participation in day care is a public service registered in IPLOS, which requires registration of functional level, while attendance in employment support is registered in SSB, where functional level is not registered.…”

“…However, there is a gap between policy and practice in employment and participation in day care for people with IDs, reflected in the relatively low rates of people employed or in day care in Norway (Hvinden 2004;Halvorsen et al 2016;Kuznetsova et al 2017).…”

Labour Market Integration and Equality for Disabled People: A Comparative Analysis of Nordic and Baltic Countries

“…Bickenbach and Bickenbach 2009). The bar is set high but we should 'not take for granted that the Nordic countries are always forerunners' (Halvorsen et al 2015).…”

Robert Nozick and Axel Honneth: An attempt to shed light on mental health service in Norway through two diametrical philosophers

“…For example, it was not expected that people suffering from severe mental illness should work. Halvorsen, Hvinden, and Schøyen (:13) explains that the Nordic welfare‐model “supports the equalization of life chances by ensuring free access to education, promoting participation in paid work for the whole adult population […] and, finally, by offering a comprehensive system of social protection.” Although social protection is still a key trait of the Nordic model, the last two decades politics have changed towards more emphasis on avoiding people ending up on social security. This is supported by both the rightwing parties and the Labour Party.…”