thoughts on the welfare state

I've been learning a lot about Sweden's welfare state, both in and out of the classroom. In my first class here we discussed liberal egalitarianism (made famous by rawls and expanded upon by dworkin) which explains the need for a welfare state on a theoretical basis which considers the moral equality of individuals as paramount. This line of thinking recognizes that there are inherent inequalities between people (that they don't deserve) and thus desires to equalize positions, allowing inequity only when it benefits the least well off. Perhaps at a theoretical level this seems right, but putting it into practice requires a society which does not believe that individuals have a considerable amount of self-ownership. Liberal egalitariansim seems to require the valuing of others in the community on an equal level with yourself and immediate family while at the same time promoting individuals and individual rights as supreme. This almost seems a contradiction. The individualistic western culture with which liberalism has historically been associated seems to make the imposition of a welfare state a difficult task.

In the States we don't usually think of our country as being a welfare state, but to some degree it certainly is. Granted you can go from riches to rags and end up on the streets, but there are unemployment transfers and government sponsored programs to keep you from going hungry and get you back on your feet, as long as you want to get back to work. The government provides education and subsidizes higher education and healthcare for many who can't afford them. We seem to take it for granted that a modern state provides basic services to its population but this was not always the case, nor is it true everywhere today.

Let's go back to the reasons for the welfare state. I've always thought that governments provide basic services like education because it is in the best interest of the state to have an educated population. Certainly countries have and will continue to compete for places of power in the global community and that requires a certain level of competancy among laborers (at least in the modern context). The Swedish welfare state takes it further, they provide free education all the way through (including masters and Ph.D's), generous retirement benefits, gender-equalizing policies such as shared maternity/paternity leave paid for by the government, free healthcare (like the rest of europe), etc. The sentiment here is "we're all equal so why shouldn't we all have the same opportunities?"

I think it really comes down to values. In the states people are always talking about "hard work" while here the buzz word seems to be "equality". I've always taken it for granted that inequity is inherent in the world and thus some people will have to work harder than others to have "the good life." I guess I've never questioned the justice of such a thought. I used to whine to my dad that someone got more than me- he would simply reply, "michelle, life's not fair." Perhaps that is why the swedish culture and liberal egalitarianism seem so strange to me. Is it unjust for some to have more than others? Since when did justice mean an equal distribution? For some people, the two seem to be equivical. Is this a cultural sense of entitlement? Am I wrong to think that God gives to each a certain lot, and it's what we do with what we're given (talents, opportunities, resources) by which we are measured?

So all these thoughts are rolling around in my brain whilest I'm also pondering economic development. Previously I have considered my reason for being involved in development more along the lines of compassion for the poor than giving them their due. Do I think it's right and just that a few hundred families own most of the arable land in South America and the landless farmers are often employed at close to slave wages? Certainly not. There is plenty of injustice based on distribution. But this is where I get stuck. I do think that the huge tracks of land sitting unused by rich landowners should be redistributed to the people without land, but I'm not sure if I consider such an action an act of mercy and love like Christ told us to act, or as a requirement of justice because each person has a moral right to an equal share. So now you see that this entry is really just me trying to figure out what I think.

Back in the 1970's, the swedish welfare state was much more built up and regulated than it is today (the economic crisis of the 90's brought a lot of deregulation). The majority of the population was within one of 4 national labor unions and these unions basically sat down with employers and made deals while the government watched and gave its blessing. The main thrust of this policy was 'wage solidarity' which meant "equal pay for equal work"- even between companies and in somewhat different industries. This resulted in the majority of the population having very similar incomes and the floor and ceiling effect- with government money transfers, no one could drop below a certain level and with a progressive tax scheme that dramatically taxed away extra income after a certain point. This is why Sweden has one of the lowest Gini coeffiecints (which measures inequality) in the world. The system also focused on preventitive measures and proactive government intervention which is less costly than recovery and crisis management. This was one argument that the welfare state could propel development rather than stifle it.

The Swedes seem more relaxed about their work. On the news the other night they were interviewing people in the debate to change the workday from 8 to 6 hours a day. The woman they were interviewing was saying how nice it was for her to have 2 more hours a day at home with her family since her company had switched. I can't really imagine America instituting a 6 hour work day, so that working over 30 hours a week would mean overtime. Yet it's a nice thought. Certainly all those worried that China is going to pass us as a world power wouldn't like what that would do to GDP. It definitely seems like there are less adult Swedes working themselves to death, though family values seem to be weaker here (that's an entry for another day).

Well thanks for reading to this point, I know that was probably just a lot of incoherent rambling. I'm curious to hear what people think about a "just distribution" so leave a comment if you like. Being a brunette is great, I feel like I have a whole new wardrobe. My corridor is feeling more like a family everday. I guess I do a lot of "real" cooking compared to some of the others because Alexander told me today I'm like the corridor "wife". He said he wouldn't mind if I had some food on the table for him when he got home lol. All that probably because today I tried to cook a whole chicken and it looked all fancy. Tasted pretty good too. Okay well I should really go back to learning about Sweden's economic history and reading up on the world development reports for my economic development class. I can't believe it's March 18th!