Differences between Swedish and the American Welfare States - Essay Example

Differences between Swedish and American welfare s al affiliation Differences between Swedish and American welfare states 1.0. Introduction Welfare states have raised numerous contentious issues in the over the years. Various analysts hold varying views on the meanings of welfare states. Conversely, various countries have different perceptions on the interpretations on welfare states. According to Mau and Veghte (2007, pp.27) the idea of welfare states may be discussed under various contexts. Among the models that endeavor to shed light on the welfare state are inclusive of the ideal model that indicates that the welfare state refers to welfare state as a model for the provision of proper well being for its citizens in a comprehensive and global manner. Welfare states can also be discussed on the basis of the state welfare. This is an interpretation of the forms of welfare being provided by the country. Analysts argue that this form of welfare is mostly evident in countries like U.S.A. where the government has displayed endless efforts, in an attempt to care for all its citizens. Over the years, U.S.A. has been rated among the many countries that have shown endless efforts in the provision of services to the country. In terms of social protection model, many welfare states, especially the ones that are in the Scandinavian regions and West Europe, protection of the citizens is provided by a group of voluntary organizations, the government, public service amongst other groups of people and individuals. Such countries that enjoy the provision of services by a group of people and organizations are regarded as welfare states. In this context, therefore, it is justified to argue that, welfare states have a wide range of meanings on the basis of various analysts and researchers. In order to understand to the concept of welfare states, it is important to highlight the issue of welfare states by evaluating welfare states. A comprehensive comparison of the policies of different countries, by analyzing the actions taken by each in these countries, welfare can be understood on these grounds. For instance, an analysis of the policies in U.S.A. and Europe display variations in countries of these regions. An analysis of the resources that are useful for wellbeing provision should be the focus on population structures of the countries. Production can be also sensible attribute in measurement of the positions welfare states are holding at the moment. Various states have various means of operating their structures that are peculiar for other welfare states. An understanding of welfare states can be made possible by comparing the operations of various welfare states. In short, this is to explain that, an analysis of various countries and their perceptions on the welfare state, it is easy to understand this concept and come up with conclusions on the methodologies to apply in the study of welfare states. This case study will attempt to compare and contrast the welfare systems of Sweden and U. S.A., by analyzing the functionality of both systems, and devise the best methodology of coming up with a workable basis of carrying out research on this theme. 2.0. Body 2.1. Brief analysis of the Sweden welfare systems Timonen (2001, pp.44) indicates that, the Swedish welfare system is among the best rated in the world. Most countries wish to borrow a lot from the Swedish system which has been labeled as a role model to many countries in the globe. The Swedish government applies the use of redistributions among various institutions with the need of ensuring that all citizens attain the best in a uniform manner. Social equality is the number one priority for the Swedish government. In the work of Timonen (2001, pp.39), he indicates that, the Swedish government spends a great sum of money on social protection through, OECD, in an attempt to incorporate all citizens into the systems of the country. A great percentage of the money is left for individuals to run their own households. This is an interpretation of the actuality of the rate of spending in the individuals whereby a good amount of money is for the social protection of all kinds of citizens in the country. In fact, studies indicate that, the amount of money left for independent households records less than half of the national income. Timonen (2001, pp.47) argues that it is in countries like Sweden that social policies like egalitarianism works as a country’s policy. This policy is combined with institutional redistributive models that allow for social policies in the country. Egalitarianism can be described as a policy that describes the true aspects of reality in the society. Factual reality in this context can be referred to as the move by governments to ensure that their citizens have equal opportunities to compete in the society. Additionally, the Swedish government, according to Timonen (2001, pp.29), applies the policies of selective occupation experience by application of all policies of equality in the labor market. On the other hand, the country welfare systems apply the policies of commonality on the basis of the all members of the state in one way or another in an attempt to attained organized cooperation among its citizens. All members have specific roles that they have to perform, in order, for them to claim a share in the society. The labor system of the country is also on the way forward towards attaining solidarity among its citizens. The move applied by the labor system is that they have attempted to create organized harmony among its citizens, by harmonizing the wage strategies that enhanced living standards. The system also ensures that; there are minimal discrepancies among individuals and equitable wealth distribution. 2.2. Analysis of the U.S.A. welfare systems On another angle, U.S.A.’s welfare system is one of the most controversial systems that are debated upon by many social analyst and researchers. Over the years, the system has raised varying debates on its suitability and workability of the policies applied by the current system of government. However, this essay shall make an attempt at making an analysis of this system of government, on the basis of the criteria set above. On a commencement note U.S.A. may be defined as a liberal state by various analysts, and non-liberal by other analysts. On the part of supporting the state as a liberal one, U.S.A. has been rated among the countries that apply the policies of laissez faire welfare regime. Individualism and residualism, according to the thoughts of Garfinkel, Rainwater and Smeeding (2010, pp.44) are part and parcel of the US welfare system. Poverty, in this context may be attributed as the will of the individuals who are sinking in the menace. Fundamentally, poverty in U.S.A may be regarded as retaliatory. Among the issues that are facing the welfare systems of the country include the preface of the phase of workfare that does not allow for long term benefits for its citizens as well as, constant disparagement of the persons of low class in the society. In this context, it is warranted to argue that, the US welfare system is not a synchronized one like the Swedish. Howard (2007, pp.33) indicates that the US welfare system is characterized by the state holding the major systems that pertain to public aid, health insurance systems, and social care amongst others. In fact, the current health care systems have a lot to do with the discrepancies that are present in the country. In the past, the central government has less power over the welfare systems, prior to Roosevelt administration. It is after Roosevelt’s reign that the country saw a revolution in the manner in which systems were run in the country. Howard (2007, pp.54) argues Roosevelt set the base of social security system by embarking on war on poverty. On a lighter note, analysts argue that, it is through Roosevelt’s policies that U.S.A. was able to emancipate the poorest of the poor from health care related issues. This particular time when the country was going through an extremely difficult time, the state was able to come out of the massive poverty that would have brought the country to its drain. Other analysts argue that US is more of a pluralistic state than a liberal one. The populations of U.S.A. need a lot of support ranging from the schooling state, insurance, military personnel, welfare, and provision of services amongst other services. The population, evidently is large enough in such a way that, the government has to dedicate a great percentage of its resources in maintain individuals in the country. In essence, the government argues that maintaining these individuals is very difficult. As a result, the country has resulted into being an individualistic country whereby each person fights to get what they want to achieve in the society. The form altruism that is dedicated to many countries in the world, in this context is a decentralized one, in that, the country’s system acts in a way that it fashions its citizens towards being individualistic. All needs in a country come at a particular price, resulting into the system being extremely expensive in its own contexts. 3.0. Reasons behind the disparity in welfare systems between Sweden and U.S.A. 3.1. U.S.A. and the Great Depression A closer look at the two countries, there is major disparity in its welfare systems from the fact that, they have undergone different systems in the past. Historical developments of a country determine the kind of welfare a particular country is likely to have. According to Stephens and Huber (2001, pp.55) what countries has undergo determine the kind of systems and policies they are going to adapt. He continues to argue that the past cannot be alienated from the future systems. In the U.S.A., as a case in point, the country has been shaped by various traditions that have tainted the financially viable and social state of affairs of the country. Clarke and Fox (2001, pp.39) aims at shedding more light on the welfare system of U.S.A.by arguing that the country has undergone major phases in its economy that cannot be alienated from a discussion on its welfare systems. In the past, U.S.A. enjoyed a long period of dependence on agriculture, then industrial revolution took over in the country. As a result, the country experienced growth in all angles, starting from urbanization, economic stability amongst other sectors. In this context, there was a need to aid all the poor people and allow them have sensible and productive lives. Relief systems were organized to ensure that its citizens had a decent livelihood from contributions by the able people. Consequently, aid was provided on a more organized basis, with the poor being categorized on various bases. In the meantime, Garfinkel, Rainwater and Smeeding (2010, pp.11) argue that, the then government had come to terms with the fact that, it was immensely tasking for them to come to the aid of all poor persons in the country. In response, the government advocated for a social welfare approach system that would focus on the public at large. This form of system worked on the basis that, only those people that were eligible for benefits are the ones that would get them. To fit in this system, individuals were forced to contribute an amount of money that would be given back to them after a particular period of time. In the context of the US, the first form of social insurance system began with the workers’ compensations, through constitutional amendments. All groups of people were incorporated into pension plans, from teachers, health practitioners, and all government employees. By 1935, the country had undergone extremely difficult times that led its creation of a need by members of the state to cope with financial problems faced by the country. In response loans and grants were created by the federal government in an attempt to sustain its citizens. The aged and the physically challenged were incorporated into the systems of compensations, but only through organizations that had to arise a particular amount of money. In the latter years with an increase in the costs of living, a greater percentage of the people opted to move out of these schemes but was barred, only at a considerable cost. In essence, the reasons behind the US welfare system are based on the grounds that, the country was undergoing massive issues in stabilizing its economy after the Great Depression. It was during this time that the Great Depression challenged the likelihood that the country was likely to stabilize once more. During the depression, each and every person considered the government as their ‘big brother’. Before the Depression, many Americans enjoyed the pride of taking care of themselves and incorporate all poor people into systems that would emancipate them from the menace of poverty in their lives. Prior to the Great Depression, the government recorded fewer both government forms of pension and private schemes. At that particular time, the state operated on the basis that people must work hard, and the cycle transmitted to the young people in the society. In the latter years, the US welfare system, according to Howard (2007, pp.31) was to incorporate all people under pensions as indicated in the New Deal. The jobless has to be fixed ion systems of employment as well as all victims of Depression, in an endeavor to ensure that, all persons work an extra mile towards ensuring that the state is geared on the right track. Garfinkel, Rainwater and Smeeding (2010, pp.61) indicate that, President Roosevelt, was in no way on a mission towards not incorporating all uncertainties of life under close check. The country could not risk watching the country fall under the mercies of economic degradation. All citizens in the country had to work extra hard to ensure that the state is on its way towards success in terms of economic stability. Summarizing the US system, it is vivid that the Great Depression played a major role in the creation of the existing welfare system. It is apparent that the future cannot be alienated from the past. 3.2. The Swedish Model An analysis of Swedish method of running activities is totally different from the way U.S.A conducts its activities. The Swedish economy incorporated market mixed economy which included collaboration between the public and private sectors. Salonen (2001, pp.50) in her work, ‘Sweden: Between Model and Reality’, she argues that Sweden has made an attempt to maintain its welfare systems despite the difficult times. This was in an attempt to have a stabilized economic specialty that would in turn lead to a stable and sustainable economic system by the individual of the country. At the end of the day, the Swedish government was much more concerned with ensuring that poverty is eradicated as well as the having an equitable distribution of wealth among individuals. Essentially, the Swedish government was keen to ensure that, the country attained economic efficiency and long term growth that would sustain the country for a long time. This is an interpretation of the close contact between the government and its citizens to ensure that all factors that would contribute positively to the growth of the country are harnessed. On the other hand, US government let all activities run free before the Depression and only came in when too late to save the situation at an instance. Another factor that draws the line between Sweden and US welfare system is the fact that Sweden opted to take a neutral stand in terms of world wars. With U.S.A. being a major player in the World War, Sweden was much more focused in stabilizing its country. A great percentage of the Swedish citizens were being incorporated in the Industrial sector. Freeman, Topel and Swedenborg (2010, pp.38) argue, that while other states were on the run to ‘show their muscles’; Sweden was on a move to develop and stabilize the country. At the end of the world war, the US government had to shift a lot of energy to restructure its systems to have a workable plan on the economic breakdown of the country. At this particular point, Sweden was holding a totally different agenda that would of course aim at steering the country towards higher levels of success. 4.0. Conclusion From this argument, it is warranted to argue that, the welfare systems of both countries could not match. Alber (2010, pp.111) attests to the fact that, the welfare systems between Europe and America have a great disparity. He continues to argue that this disparity can be looked at on a historical angle. The governments of these sates are totally different on their takes on policies to be applied in terms of social and economic development of its citizens. On one hand, the US government realizes the fact that the state is likely to fail completely after the Great Depression, while the Swedish government is aware that taking part war is the major factor that may demoralize the country completely. This refers to the major reasons why Sweden had rapidly grown rapidly since 19th century. Sweden, just like any other states also faces challenges, but it is the constant and consistent growth that has led to the praise of being one of the greatest countries of social equality globally (Salonen, 2001, pp.33). Bibliography Alber, J, 2010, What the European and American Welfare States Have in Common and Where They Differ. Facts and Fiction in Comparisons of the European Social Model and the United States. In: Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.102-125  Clarke, J, Fox Piven, F, 2001, United States: An American Welfare State? In Alcock , P, Craig, G,(eds) 2001, International Social Policy, Basingstoke: Palgrave.  Freeman, B, Topel, R, and Swedenborg, B, 2010, Reforming the welfare state: recovery and beyond in Sweden, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Garfinkel, I, Rainwater, L, and Smeeding, T, 2010, Wealth and welfare states: is America a laggard or leader? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Howard, C, 2007, The welfare state nobody knows: debunking myths about U.S. social policy, New York: Princeton University Press. Mau, S, and Veghte, B, 2007, Social justice, legitimacy and the welfare state, London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Salonen, T, 2001, Sweden: Between Model and Reality. In Alcock , P, Craig, G, (eds) 2001, International Social Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.   Stephens, J, and Huber, E, 2001, Development and crisis of the welfare state: parties and policies in global markets, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Timonen, V, 2001, Earning Welfare Citizenship: Welfare State Reform in Finland and Sweden, pp. 29-51, in Peter Taylor Goodby (Ed.), Welfare States Under Pressure, Sage Publications. Read More