Transcript Fudan university_albrekt Larsen_without pictures

1
The Nordic Welfare State and
Social Cohesion
Christian Albrekt Larsen
Professor, Centre for Comparative Welfare Studies (www.CCWS.dk),
Aalborg University, Denmark
2
A question for you
(Discuss with the person next to you):
Do you think the bonds that keep the Chinese people
together have increased or decreased within the last
twenty years?
3
Disposition:
• 1: Social development and the welfare state
• 2: Why is social trust so important?
• 3: How did social trust decrease in US/UK?
• 4: How did social trust increase in DK/SW?
• 5: The importance of social constructions
• 6: Competing theories
• 7: The challenge from increased ethnic diversity
4
1: Social development and the
welfare state:
• Pressure:
– Modernisation (Durkheim), Capitalism (Marx)
• The welfare state as a response:
– T.H. Marshall (citizenship)
– Esping-Andersen (de-commodification)
- Rothstein: Social capital / trust
5
The classic trust question:
Generally speaking, would you say that most people
can be trusted or that you need to be careful in dealing
with other people?
1. Most people can be trusted.
2. Need to be very careful
80.0%
70.0%
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
Rwanda
Peru
Ghana
Malaysia
Brazil
Cyprus
Iran
Zambia
Chile
Morocco
Colombia
Burkina Faso
Serbia
Mexico
Guatemala
Mali
Argentina
Moldova
Slovenia
Georgia
Egypt
S Africa
France
Poland
Spain
Andorra
Romania
Bulgaria
India
Taiwan
Ethiopia
Russia
Ukraine
S Korea
Uruguay
Italy
Britain
Jordan
Germany
Japan
USA
Iraq
Hong Kong
Thailand
Indonesia
Canada
Netherlands
Australia
New Zealand
Vietnam
China
Switzerland
Finland
Sweden
Norway
Share answering ”most people can be trusted”.
World Value Survey 2005Titel
UndertitelS
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
.0%
7
The new trust question:
I’d like to ask you how much trust you trust people
from various groups…
People you meet for the first time:
1: Trust completely
2: Trust somewhat
3: Do not trust very much
4: Do not trust at all
60.0%
40.0%
Peru
Cyprus
Slovenia
China
Romania
Colombia
Chile
Moldova
Russia
Malaysia
Georgia
Turkey
S Korea
Mexico
Zambia
Brazil
Thailand
Italy
Indonesia
Bulgaria
Netherlands
Ukraine
Trinidad and Tobago
Morocco
Serbia
Taiwan
Vietnam
Poland
Ghana
Jordan
Germany
India
Andorra
Egypt
Ethiopia
Argentina
Burkina Faso
S Africa
Spain
Rwanda
Uruguay
Mali
USA
France
Australia
Britain
Canada
Switzerland
Finland
Norway
Sweden
8
Share that trust persons they meet for the first time
(World Value Survey 2005)
80.0%
70.0%
Trust somewhat
Trust completely
50.0%
v. titel
30.0%
Navn
20.0%
10.0%
.0%
9
Why is trust in strangers so
important for Society?
(Please discuss with the person next to you)
10
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Denmark
Canada
Australia
The Netherlands
N. Ireland
UK
Japan
US
Ireland
Iceland
South Korea
Spain
Russia
Hungary
Germany (west)
South Africa
Belgium
Italy
Argentina
France
Mexico
Malta
195960
WVS
198184
WVS
199093
WVS
199499
WVS
199904
WVS
200508
-
61
58
573
53
49
48
45
44
43
42
41
41
40
38
35
353
34
32
313
29
27
26
25
183
10
65
66
63
58
53
54
44
44
42
51
47
44
34
34
38
25
38
28
34
36
23
23
34
24
65
60
49
-
66
57
67
37
60
40
29
43
36
36
41
27
36
24
22
32
12
29
33
16
21
22
21
68
59
76
48
45
30
39
40
-
562
551
-
40
30
42
36
30
30
24
23
42
18
18
31
-
30
20
27
41
18
29
17
19
16
-
Trend
(earliest
Regi
– latest)
me
+4
S
+10
S
+2
S
+23
S
- 12
L
0
L
0
C/S
-4
-26
L
-3
-15
L
-5
+1
-8
-15
C
-8
-12
+9
C
-13
0
C
+2
C
-9
-6
C
-2
+11
Figure 1.1 Share answering that most people can be trust.
Sweden, Denmark, UK, and US
80
70
SW
DK
60
UK
50
US
40
30
20
10
2010
2006
2002
1998
1994
1990
1986
1982
1978
1974
1970
1966
1962
1958
1954
1950
0
Source: 1981- 2008 World Value Survey, UK 1959, Hall (1999:432); US 1960, Putnam (2000:140)
12
Figure 3.3. Income inequality in the US, UK, Sweden and Denmark (disposable equalised income
after taxes and benefits). Comparable LIS data
13
Figure 3.4. Poverty rates (percent below 50 percent of median income, disposable equalised) in the
US, UK, Sweden and Denmark
16
Why do you think equality influence trust
in unknown fellow citizens
(Please discuss with the person next to you)
Figure X.X. Self-placement in ten categories (1 = “top of society”; 10 = “bottom of society”).
Percentage using each brackets in USA (2000), Sweden, Denmark and UK (2009).
US
UK
Sweden
Denmark
1 ’Top’
3
0
1
1
2
3
2
1
2
3
10
5
10
10
4
16
11
23
19
5
31
32
29
31
6
17
19
21
22
7
10
14
8
8
8
6
10
5
5
9
2
4
1
2
10 ’Bottom’
2
3
1
2
N (100 %)
1120
936
1125
1498
Mean
5.1
5.8
5.1
5.2
Standard
deviation
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.6
Note: Wording: In our society there are groups which tend to be towards the top and those that are towards the bottom.
Here we have a scale that runs from top to bottom. Where would you put yourself on this scale?
Note: Don’t know excluded
Table X.X: Public perceptions of the actual society. US, UK, Sweden and Denmark
USA
UK
SW
DK
Type A
Type B
Type C
Type D
Type E
A small elite at
the top, very few
people in the
middle and the
great mass of
people at the
bottom
A society like a
pyramid with a
small elite at
the top, more
people in the
middle, and
most at the
bottom
32
42
23
11
A pyramid
except that
just a few
people are
at the
bottom
A society with
most people
in the middle.
Many people
near the top,
and only a
few near the
bottom.
19
19
30
26
29
20
38
59
3
4
2
4
17
16
7
2
Source: USA GSS 2000, UK BSA 2009, DK ISSP 2009, SW ISSP 2009
Note: Don’t know answer excluded.
N
(100 %)
1124
1848
1078
1442
Figure X.X. Perception of society type and trust levels (US 2000; UK, SW and DK 2009)
90,0%
80,0%
70,0%
60,0%
US
50,0%
UK
SW
40,0%
DK
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
,0%
TYPE A
TYPE B
TYPE C
Note: Don’t know responses excluded
N: US = 697, UK = 860, SW = 1036, DK = 1375
Chi-square: US 28.2**, UK 29.2**, SW 31.1**, DK 36.0**
TYPE D
TYPE E
21
Competing
) - theories
• De-industrialisation (’marxist’ thinking)
• De-familization (’conservative’ thinking)
• De-nationalization (’nationalistic thinking)
• De-mobilization of civil society (communitarian thinking))
19
60
19
64
19
68
19
72
19
76
19
80
19
84
19
88
19
92
19
96
20
00
20
04
20
08
Share of male industrial workers among 16 - 64 years old
De-industrialization
70
60
50
40
Danmark
Sverige
Storbritanien
USA
30
20
10
0
Kilde: OECD.STAT
Figure X.X. Marriage rates (marriage by 1000 inhabitants) in US, UK, Sweden and Denmark
14
14
12
12
10
10
Sweden
8
8
UK
Denmark
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
19
45
19
49
19
53
19
57
19
61
19
65
19
69
19
73
19
77
19
81
19
85
19
89
19
93
19
97
20
01
20
05
6
USA
Figure X.X: Divorce rates (divorces by 1000 inhabitants) in US, UK, Sweden and Denmark
6
6
5
5
4
4
Sweden
3
3
UK
Denmark
USA
2
1
1
0
0
19
45
19
49
19
53
19
57
19
61
19
65
19
69
19
73
19
77
19
81
19
85
19
89
19
93
19
97
20
01
20
05
2
Source: Sweden, UK and Denmark: Own calculations based on online database from Statistic Sweden and Denmark.
US: Taken from census report (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf)
Figure X.X. Percentage of children (0 – 17) living in single mother households
25
20
15
Denmark
Sweden
10
UK
US
5
0
67 969 971 973 975 977 979 981 983 985 987 989 991 993 995 997 999 001 003 005 007
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Source: Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), main indicators.
Figure X.X. Foreign born (aged 15 or more) around 2000 in percent of total population. Distributed
by region of origin
United States
Africa
Asia
United
Kingdom
Europe
North America
Sweden
Oceania
South and Central America and
Caribbean
Denmark
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
Source: Own calculations based on OECD.stat. Database on immigration in OECD countries
29
The challenge from increased
ethnic diversity:
Experimental evidence -BASIS
Figure 11.2. Share indicating trust in most people across treatment groups. Standard measure (1 =
trust) (0 = mistrust or do not know).
Figure 11.4. The experimental effect across students from mixed and non-mixed schools. Share
indicating trust on standard measure (1 = trust) (0 = mistrust or do not know).
THE SCHOOL EXPERIMENT
References
•
Larsen, C. A. (2011). ”Ethnic Heterogeneity and Public Support for Welfare: Is the
American Experience Replicated in Britain, Sweden and Denmark?”, Scandinavian
Political Studies
•
Larsen, C. A. & T. Dejgaard (forthcoming), ”The Institutional Logic of Images of the
Poor and Welfare Recipients A Comparative Study of British, Swedish and Danish
Newspapers, Journal of European Social Policy
•
Larsen, C. A. (2013). The Rise and Fall of Social Cohesion. The Construction and
De-construction of Social Trust in the US, UK, Sweden and Denmark. Oxford
University Press