TURUN YLIOPISTO
UNIVERSITY OF TURKU
SOSIAALIPOLITIIKAN LAITOS
SARJA B:22 / 2000
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL POLICY
SERIES B:22 / 2000
Katja Forssén
Child Poverty in the Nordic Countries1
This publication was funded by the United Nations Children’s Fund,
Innocent Research Centre in Florence, Italy. The main results of this paper has
been published in: A league Table of Child Poverty in Rich Nations.
Innocenti Report Card, Issue No. 1, June 2000.
1
2
University of Turku
Department of Social Policy
Series B: 22 / 2000
Child Poverty in the Nordic Countries
by
Katja Forssén1
1
The author wants to thank Dr. John Micklewright for valuable comments and Mrs.
Poppy Skarli for consulting the language. However, the author takes full responsibility for
the final version of the article.
3
Turun yliopisto
ISBN 951-29-1791-2
ISSN 1236-1453
4
Introduction
Children and their families are very often a central issue in contemporary political
and policy debate in most western welfare states. This special interest in children’s
well-being can be explained in many ways: It is argued that the well-being of
children is not only an indication of a society’s moral worth, children are also a
human capital, the most important resource for a society’s future (Bradshaw 1997;
Ringen 1997). Almost every action welfare states take has an impact on families and
family life.
At an ideological level, every welfare state wants to guarantee the well being of
children. In practice, there is great variation in the ways family policies have been
structured and in the outcomes they have achieved. The degree to which family
support systems has been developed, depends to a great degree, upon ideological
and historical factors.
The next table shows that family policy matters if we
compare the levels of family policy legislation to the real incomes of children living
in poverty.
Table 1. Typology of different welfare state by the level of legislation and real
incomes of children in the lowest quantile as a percentage of the US median
income.
Strong legislation
Weak legislation
Real incomes 60 – 45 % of
US median income
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Belgium
Norway
Germany
Luxembourg
Real incomes 44 – 30 % of
US median income
France
Italy
Netherlands
USA
Australia
United Kingdom
Sources: Legislation (Millar et al. 1996; Forssén 1999). Real incomes (Smeeding et al.
1997).
5
Table 1 shows the correlation of the legislation level to the outcomes of family
policy. It shows the diversity between family policy legislation and the economic
situation of the children living in the lowest quantile. It tells us how poor the poor
children really are in different countries. It seems that in most cases the strong
family policy legislation goes hand in hand with good economic situation of children
in the lowest quantile.
This paper concentrates only on the family policies in the Nordic countries. It has
been argued that operating with a Nordic model of welfare is analytically justified,
while it is more difficult to empirically identify common traits among the Nordic
countries. The aim of this paper is to find out how difficult it is to identify these
common traits by highlighting similarities and differences in the Nordic welfare
states. The other aim of this paper is to seek an answer why the child poverty rates
are so low in the Nordic countries. In this study the concept of the Nordic welfare
states refers to Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden excluding Iceland because
of lack of comparative data. The data used in this paper is based on Luxembourg
Income Study database. Child poverty is measured as 50 % of the overall median
income and the equivalent scale used is the square root scale.
Distribution of welfare
The primary producer and distributor of welfare is the family. Characteristics of the
family such as the family structure, occupational status of the parents, and the age
and number of children, have a direct effect on the welfare of the family members.
The family both enables the maximization of the welfare of its members and is
capable of preventing it. Society can not very easily intervene in this primary
distribution of welfare. In recent welfare research, more and more attention has been
given to family-internal distribution of welfare (Ringen 1987). Even though it is an
established objective of the welfare state to prevent inequality, it has been found that
6
the distribution of welfare within households still creates inequality, generally to the
detriment of children.
It is, of course, clear that many other factors besides the family are involved in the
production of welfare for the individual. The economic condition of the surrounding
society is a stronger factor than family. Social policy is the essential tool with which
the primary market distribution of welfare is controlled. It plays an essentially
important role as producer and distributor of welfare. Through what Ringen (1995)
calls strategy of redistribution, social policy steps in after the market has performed
the initial distribution. The purpose of social policy is to correct inequalities left by
the initial distribution by the market. Sociopolitical measures contribute to the
attainment of basic social goals (e.g., equality) without intervening in the
functioning of the basic social mechanisms, especially the economic ones.
The Nordic social policy system has been characterized as an early and wide
redistributional system. Walter Korpi (1983) has studied the strategy of
redistribution from the point of view of the sequential order of different measures in
the different sectors of social policy. He researched the redistributional effect of the
political sectors on the livelihood of individuals and families. Different
sociopolitical measures can be classified according to the point in the income
distribution process at which they are being used. Services and general income
redistribution measures take place at fairly early stages of the redistributional
process; need-assessed transfers to individuals take place at a fairly late stage of the
process. Labour policy measures that are clearly connected to economic policy have
an effect on the primary distribution of livelihood in the labor market, whereas
social-security policy measures are more a question of subsistence redistribution
taking place after the initial distribution by the labor market. In international
comparisons, differences between the welfare state regimes are particularly
noticeable in their different redistribution strategies. In liberal regime countries, the
7
emphasis of redistribution policy is at the end of the redistribution process, whereas
in the Nordic countries it is clearly at the early part of the redistribution process.
It is not only the early redistribution policy but the coverage and compensation level
which characterize the Nordic welfare state model. Esping-Andersen and Korpi
(1987) have defined the Scandinavian institutional welfare state in terms of three
essential features. Social policy is comprehensive in its attempt to provide welfare.
The principles of the welfare state are pushed further into civil society than is
internationally common. The second distinct feature is the degree to which the social
entitlement principle has been institutionalized. Citizens have a basic right to a very
wide range of services and benefits which are intended to constitute a democratic
right to a socially adequate level of living. The third feature is the solidaristic and
universalist nature of social legislation. The welfare state is meant to integrate and
include the entire population rather than target its resources towards a particular
problem group. (Esping-Andersen & Korpi 1987, 42.)
General trends of the Nordic welfare state model
Many studies commonly use the Nordic welfare states as an ‘umbrella’ term. A
closer look reveals huge differences in areas such as history, politics and economics.
In addition the development of welfare states differs greatly among these countries.
All four countries experienced rapid economic growth after the war. The 1950s and
1960s were the period when the Nordic welfare state model was grounded. The
benefit systems, the time of their introduction, and the speed with which the reforms
were carried through differed among these countries.
Kangas (1993) has shown that in the beginning of the 1990s the Nordic countries
differ from other countries in the size of the public expenditure and most of which is
used on public services. High social expenditure financed by tax revenus is still
8
characteristic of the Nordic countries. But it is a fact that the ranking of the countries
into the different models depends on the period. Sweden became a Nordic welfare
state (if the criterion is high social expenditure) in the 1970s. Finland entered that
group only in the 1980s if measured by the coverage and the level of benefits.
(Kangas 1993.)
The next figure shows the growth of the Nordic welfare states from the 1950s. In the
beginning of the period all the Nordic countries were in equal position as far as
social expenditure is viewed. Sweden took a leading role with the rapid growth in
social expenditure. From the 1960s to the 1990s there is a great difference in the
shares of social expenditures among these countries. Finland was a welfare state
late-comer. By the end of 1970s social insurance coverage in Finland had reached
the high Scandinavian level, but the level of benefits was still lagging behind.
Figure 1. Social security expenditure in relation to GDP, 1950 – 1995.
40
30
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
20
10
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
1995
Source: Social tryghed I de nordeske lande 1980, 1989, 1997
The Nordic countries differ from other countries not only by high share of social
security expenditure but also high level of female employment. Female labour force
participation rates and social security benefits started to increase simultaneously.
9
The next table shows the development of women’s labour force participation rates
and the share of part time employment of total female employment.
Table 2. Women’s labour force participation rates (and the percentage of part
time employment) in the Nordic countries, 1973 – 1997
Denmark
1973
61.9
Finland
63.6
Norway
50.6
(47.8)
62.6
Sweden
1979
69.9
(46.3)
68.9
(10.6)
61.7
(51.7)
72.8
(46.0)
1983
74.2
(44.7)
72.7
(12.5)
65.5
(54.9)
76.6
(45.9)
1990
77.6
(36.7)
72.5
(10.4)
70.7
(47.1)
82.3
(41.3)
1994
73.8
(26.7)
69.8
(11.2)
71.3
(37.4)
74.6
(24.9)
1997
74.2
(24.7)
71.1
(10.2)
75.6
(36.8)
74.5
(22.6)
Source: OECD employment outlook 1995, 1999
The structure of labour force participation in Finland is different from that of the
other Nordic countries. In Finland part-time employment has always been less
common although the labour force participation level is almost at the same level as
in the other countries. This means that Finnish women are used to work more than
the women in the other Nordic countries.
High female labour force participation rates in the Nordic countries are often
explained by good provision of day care services. The fact is that women’s labour
force participation rates were already high before the growth of day care places. So
the explanation for high employment rates cannot be purely based on publicly
provided day care. In the 1970s and the 1980s most of the children were taken care
of through other arrangements than through public day care sector (See Table 4).
It has been argued that the welfare state has influenced not only the supply of female
labour but also the demand. The entrance of women into the labour market has
mainly resulted in their filling position in the steadily growing sector of public
service occupations. Public service occupations first included health care workers
and later in the 1970s and 1980s workers in day care sector.
10
The Nordic family policy model
The concept of family policy is not clearly defined. The governments support
families with children by putting emphasis on taxation, income transfers, parental
leaves or social services. In most countries all these elements are used more or less.
In general, the family policy instruments can be classified into three separate
categories labelled ‘money’, ‘time-off’ and ‘services’. (Kamerman & Kahn 1994.) In
the Nordic countries these categories have developed in a chronological order. The
universal family policy systems started with child allowance schemes in the 1940s.
Then came maternity leave (paid) and later in the 1970s and 1980s the services.
There is the fourth family policy category ‘children’s rights’ which started to
developed in the 1980s in the Nordic countries and which still is undeveloped in
many other industrialized countries. This chapter has a brief overview of the
development of these family policy categories in the Nordic countries.
The Nordic family policy has historically focused on children well-being, female
labour force participation and gender equality. All countries emphasize the
integration of gender equality in family roles and responsibilities as a general goal in
their family support schemes. A consequence of this development is that many of
the women in paid employment in the Nordic countries work in the public sector.
Money
The development of family policy systems started with means-tested or targeted
maternity benefits. After the Second World War all the four countries started to
introduce universal benefits. The next table shows when the first maternity laws
were introduced.
11
Table 3. Introduction of the first maternity schemes
Scheme
First maternity leave legislation (unpaid)
Maternity leave benefits (paid)
First family allowance scheme
DEN
1913
1915
1952
FIN
1917
1937
1948
NW
1915
1915
1946
SW
1900
1931
1947
Source: Gauthier 1994
The first maternity leave legislation was intended for those women who were in
labour force. Paid maternity leave in Finland was introduced much later than in the
other Nordic countries. At first, the maternity leave benefits were flat rated
(Denmark, Sweden and Norway) or a lump sum-benefit (in Finland) (See Appendix
Table 1). In all countries maternity leave has extended quite rapidly since the 1960s.
In 1990 Sweden has the longest paid maternity leave (65 weeks), Finland was the
second (53 weeks). The level of maternity leave was high in all countries.
Compensation level varies from 75 % (Sweden) to 90 % (Denmark). The strongest
difference between the Nordic countries and liberal welfare states appears to be paid
maternity leave. Tax relief and child allowances are common in almost every
country (except in the USA) but universal maternity leave exists only in the Nordic
countries.
Time-off
All Nordic countries have established policy measures to facilitate the combination
of occupational activity and family obligations and to stimulate a more equal share
of the responsibility for care and household work within the family. Occupationally
active parent’s right to leaves of absence at childbirth is by now developed into a
fairly extensive parental leave. Besides that, all the countries have introduced
extended leave schemes (See Appendix Table 3) which means that one of the
parents can take care of the child at home until the child turns three years of age
(while his/her job remains secure). Finland is providing paid extended leave.
12
Services
During the 1960s the question of children’s day care emerged at the centre of heated
social debate: day care was not only an issue of upbringing or of poor relief but the
focus now was on women´s right to wage employment. All Nordic countries
updated their legislation on day care (Denmark 1964, Finland 1973, Norway 1975,
Sweden 1973), either by obliging local governments to create a large number of day
care places or supporting them to do so (Sipilä et al.1997). Day care services were
first heavily means-tested. With the increase in the supply of services, economic and
social means testing was gradually discontinued. Day care places now became
available even to those children who had two parents and those families from the
middle class. However, their parents had to pay for the service. Table 4 shows that
Finland and Sweden introduced the principle of universalism in day care in the
1990s. This means that all the children (even if both parents are unemployed) have
the right to a day care place.
Table 4. Day care services in the Nordic countries
COUNTRY
RIGHT TO DAY CARE
Denmark
1995
Percentage of children aged 0 -10
in public day care
1981
1990
1995
33
50
49
All children aged 1 to 5
years were entitled for
public day care
Finland
1985
Subjective right to day care
21
31
30
for children under 3 years of
1995
age.
The subjective right was
extended to include children
from 3 to 6 years old.
Norway
-No explicit right to day care
13
20
44
except for handicapped
children.
Sweden
1985
All children aged 1,5 to 6
36
51
44
were to be entitled to day
care place by 1991
Notes: Percentage of children in day care is from years 1981, 1987 and 1993. Sources:
Lehto et al. 1999; Social tryghed i de nordiske lande 1995.
13
Norway is the only country that has not introduced the subjective right for daycare.
The coverage of day care is high in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The coverage is
lower in Finland where home care allowance is intended to be an alternative to
municipal day care.
Children’s rights
The fourth family policy category concerns children’s rights. Therborn (1993) has
pointed out that the history of children’s rights has been the opposite of T.H.
Marshall’s idea of the history of citizenship rights. With regard to children,
elementary social rights of survival, care and education – have come first and
political rights of expression and civil rights of personal autonomy later. Therborn
argues that although the gap between industrialized countries has narrowed
enormously, the Nordic countries have remained in the forefront of children’s rights.
In 1915 Norwegian children born outside of marriage gained the right to a father,
his name and his inheritance. Denmark introduced the same law in 1937, Sweden in
1970 and Finland in 1975. In the Nordic countries corporal punishment has for long
been banned from the schools and in 1972 Norway abolished the right of parents to
spank their children. Sweden followed in 1980, Finland in 1983 and Denmark in
1985. By contrast in the Anglo-Saxon countries the right of school to mete out
corporal punishment against children was done away within the English state
schools only as recently as in 1987. (Therborn 1993.)
Reasons for low child poverty rates
It is very often pointed out that the reason for low child poverty rates is based on
existing family policy / social policy system and the patterns of female labour force
participation. It is not easy to get a clear answer which factor weighs more because
these factors seem to be strongly related to each other.
14
Figure 2. Child poverty and the level of family policies in some OECD countries
30
USA
ITA
UK
20
AS
SP
Child poverty rate
GER
10
NL
FRA
DEN
BEL
NRW
LX
FIN
SWE
0
Rsq = 0,2105
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Family policy index
Source: Child poverty rates: LIS, the latest years. Family policy index: Millar & Warman
1996; O’Donoghue & Sutherland 1998; Knudsen 1999; Forssén 1999; Forssén & Hakovirta
1999. Family policy index: Paid maternity leave + extended leave + money support for
extended leave + separate taxation + leave to care for sick child + coverage of day care.
(See Appendix Table 3)
The figure 2 shows that family policy correlates with child poverty rates. The higher
the policy index, the lower the child poverty rates. There are only two OECD
countries which do not fit in the line, Italy and Luxembourg. The Appendix Figure 1
illustrates the same thing concentrating only on the Nordic countries. The figure
shows the child poverty rates before (factor income) and after (disposable income)
income transfers. The Nordic family policy has been effective in warding off
children’s poverty. Even though child poverty measured by factor income began to
rise in the end of the 1980s, continued reduction of child poverty has been possible
via the income transfer system.
15
Figure 3. Child poverty rates and female labour force participation in some
OECD countries
With USA
30
USA
ITA UK
20
AS
Child poverty rate
SP
GER
10
NL
FRA
DEN
BEL
LX
NRW
FIN
SWE
0
Rsq = 0,0255
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Female labour force index
Without USA
30
ITA UK
20
AS
Child poverty rate
SP
GER
10
NL
FRA
DEN
BEL
LX
NRW
FIN
SWE
0
Rsq = 0,2103
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Female labour force index
Female labour force index (1997) = (women’s labour force participation rate) – (women’s
part time employment as a percentage of total female employment) Source: OECD
employment outlook 1999 table 1.A.4. and statistical annex B.
Apart from the family policy, the female labour force participation has an impact on
child poverty. Countries where the male breadwinner model is predominant usually
16
have higher child poverty rates than the Nordic countries. The labour force
participation rate does not portray an accurate picture because it includes both fulltime and part-time participation. Because of that, it is necessary to build an indicator
which separates part-time employment from the total labour force participation rates.
The Figure 3 shows correlations between child poverty rates and female labour force
index (women’s labour force participation rate – women’s part-time employment).
There seems to be a strong correlation between child poverty rate and female labour
force participation when the USA is excluded from the analysis. Women’s labour
force pattern in USA is very similar to that in Nordic countries. Most of the women
are in paid employment and part-time employment is as common as it is in Sweden
and Denmark. Despite the similar female labour force pattern, child poverty is a
serious problem in the USA. This is usually explained by the ‘working poor’ –
phenomenon. Due to low wage level, families in paid work (especially families
headed by single parent) are easily living below the poverty line. In other countries
employment seems to be an effective shelter from poverty.
The high level of female labour force participation might be connected to high
family policy level. In the Nordic countries multitasked family policy system helps
families to reconcile family life and employment. In some other countries family
policy is focused to support mothers to stay at home (See Forssén & Hakovirta
1999). The next figures show the correlation between family policy and female
labour force indexes.
17
Figure 4. Female labour force participation and the level of family policy
With USA
12
FIN
10
SWE
BEL
ITA
8
FRA
NRW
SP
6
DEN
Family policy index
GER
NL
4
AS UK
USA
2
LX
0
Rsq = 0,1716
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Female labour force index
Without USA
12
FIN
10
SWE
BEL
ITA
8
FRA
NRW
SP
6
DEN
Family policy index
GER
NL
4
AS UK
2
LX
0
Rsq = 0,3852
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Female labour force index
Once again the USA does not figure in the line because of its different female labour
force pattern. The figure without data from the USA shows that there is very strong
correlation between these two factors. So it seems that both factors, female
employment and family policy legislation have an effect on child poverty. In the
Nordic countries both indexes score very high.
18
Conclusion
This century the Nordic family policy has developed from selective economic
support to a comprehensive, universal system that ensures the well-being for
children and families with children. In the most recent period of family policy the
goal has been to facilitate combining work and home lives as well as enhancing
gender equality. This development started in the 1970s and strengthened in the
1980s and 1990s, involving daycare, home care support and care leaves. The goals
of the latest stage can be considered appropriate, and the system is now seen as good
at the coverage of and sensitive to the needs of families with children (Kamerman et
al. 1997)
The situation of the children in the Nordic countries appears to be comparatively
bright from an international perspective. Poverty in families with children is less
common in the Nordic countries than in many other OECD countries. For instance,
in Finland from a long-term perspective, the level of poverty of Finnish children has
fallen from the level of liberal countries to almost nothing (See Appendix Figure 1).
As the income transfer system has developed, the poverty risks for one-parent and
two-parent families have settled on low level although single parents’ poverty rates
are clearly higher than poverty rates in two parent families.
There are three main factors behind the low child poverty rates in the Nordic
countries. First, low child poverty is connected to the early redistributional system.
Services and general income redistribution measures take place at fairly early stages
of the redistributional process. Universal child allowances and earnings-related
unemployment and parental benefits guarantee a fairly good level of living even in
situations where the parents’ participation in paid work is not possible. Secondly,
citizens (men, women and nowadays children as well) have all the basic right to a
wide range of services. Health care and day care services are publicly provided and
user fees are modestly low. And thirdly, the solidaristic and universalistic nature of
19
social legislation integrate and include the entire population rather than target its
resources towards particular problem-group. For example, single parents have the
same rights and obligations as other family types. In this way the stigmatization of
single parents which seems to take place in the UK and USA is avoided.
There have been doubts about the future of the Nordic family policy model. Like all
the welfare states the Nordic countries are also facing four major challenges:
growing dependency ratios, new forms of organization of work, gender equality and
the question of social exclusion. All these factors are seen as key determinants of the
welfare state adopted in the Nordic countries. Norway and Denmark faced positive
development during the first half of 1990s, whereas, Finland and Sweden
experienced their deepest recession since the 1930s with large increases in
unemployment figures. By the mid-1990s the economies of both countries have
recovered but the high level of unemployment still exists. Recent studies (Ploug
1999; Marklund et al. 1999) show that although cuts were made in all four countries
and in most benefits, these cuts have not been dramatic. In the mid-1990s the cash
benefit system was still relatively generous in all Nordic countries compared to other
countries. When looking at services the main principles of the Nordic model still
exists: universalism, high quality, tax funding, and public provision.
20
References:
Bradshaw, J. 1997 Child welfare in the United Kingdom: Rising poverty, falling
priorities for children. In: Cornia, G. A. and Danziger, S. (eds.) Child poverty and
deprivation in the industrialized countries, 1945 – 1995. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Esping-Andersen, G. – Korpi, W. 1987. From poor relief to institutional welare
state: The development of Scandinavian Social Policy. In: Erikson, R. – Hansen, E.
J. – Ringen, S. – Uusitalo, H. (eds.) The Scandinavian model. Welfare states and
welfare research. Comparative Public Policy Analysis Series. M. E. Sharpe, INC,
London.
Forssén, K. - Hakovirta, M. 1999. Family policy, work incentives and employment
of mothers: findings from LIS. Paper presented at the conference ‘Child Well-being
in Rich and Transition Countries’ in Luxembourg 30.9 – 2.10.1999.
Forssén, K. 1998. Children, families and the welfare state. Studies on the outcomes
of the Finnish family policy. STAKES, Research report No: 92.
Forssén, K. 1999. Family policies and the economic well-being of children in some
OECD countries. In: Kangas, O. (ed.) Social policy in tandem with the labour
market in the European Union. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Publications
1999:10.
Gauthier, A. H. 1996. The State and the Family. A Comparative Analysis of Family
Policies in Industrialized Countries. Claredon Press, Oxford.
Gornick, J. C. - Meyers, M. K. and Ross, K. E. 1998. Public policies and the
employment of mothers: A cross-national study. Social Science Quarterly (79) 1,
35-54.
Kangas, O. 1993. The Finnish welfare state – a Scandinavian welfare state? In:
Kosonen, P. (ed.) The Nordic welfare state as a myth and as reality. Renvall
Institute, University of Helsinki.
Kamerman, S. B. – Kahn, A. J. 1997. Investing in children. Government expenditure
for children and their families in Western industrialized countries. In: Cornia, G. A.
and Danziger, S. (eds.) Child poverty and deprivation in the industrialized countries,
1945 – 1995. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
21
Kamerman, S. B. and Kahn, A. J. 1994. Family policy and the under-3s: Money,
services and time in a policy package. International Social Security Review 47 (3-4),
31-43.
Knudsen. K. 1999. Married women's labour supply and public policies in an
international perspective. Paper presented at the Population Association of America,
Annual meetings 1999. New York,
Korpi, W. 1983. The democratic class struggle. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Lehto, J. – Moss, N. – Rostgaard, T. 1999. Universal public social care and health
services? In: Kautto, M. - Heikkilä, M. – Hvinden, B. – Marklund, S. and Ploug, N.
(eds.) Nordic Social Policy. Changing welfare states. Routledge, London.
Marklund, S. – Nordlund, A. 1999. Economic problems, welfare convergence and
political instability. In: Kautto, M. - Heikkilä, M. – Hvinden, B. – Marklund, S. and
Ploug, N. (eds.) Nordic Social Policy. Changing welfare states. Routledge, London.
Millar, J. – Warman, A. 1996. Family obligations in Europe. Family Policy Studies
Centre, London
O’Donoghue, C. & Sutherland, H. 1998. Accounting for the family. The treatment
of marriage and children in European income tax systems. United Nations
Children’s Fund. International Child Development Centre. Florence, Italy.
Ploug, N. 1999. Cuts in and reform of the Nordic cash benefit system. In: Kautto,
M. - Heikkilä, M. – Hvinden, B. – Marklund, S. and Ploug, N. (eds.) Nordic social
policy. Changing welfare states. Routledge, London.
Ringen, S. 1987. The possibility of politics. A study in the political economy of the
welfare state. Clarendon Press Oxford.
Ringen, S. 1997. Citizens, families and reform. Oxford University Press Inc., New
York.
Sipilä, J. with Andersson, M – Hammarqvist, S.-E. – Nordlander, L. – Rauhala, P.L. – Thomsen, K. – Warming, H. A. 1997. A multitude of universal, public services
– how and why did four Scandinavian countries get their social care service model?
In: Sipilä, J. (ed.) Social care services. The key to the Scandinavian welfare model.
Avebury, Suffolk.
Smeeding, T. – Danziger, S. – Rainwater, L. 1997. Making social policy work for
children.: Towards for more effective antipoverty policy. In: Cornia, G. A. and
22
Danziger, S. (eds.) Child poverty and deprivation in the industrialized countries,
1945 – 1995. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Social tryghet I de nordiske lande 1995. NOSOSKO, Nordisk Socialstatistisk komité
6: 1997.
Therborn, G. 1993. The politics of Childhood: The Rights of children in modern
times. In: Castles, F. (ed.) Families of nations. Patterns of public policy in Western
democracies.
Wennemo, I. 1994. Sharing the costs of children. Studies on the development of
family support in the OECD countries. Swedish Institute for Social Research, 25.
Wennemo, I. 1996. Svensk familjepolitik - mot avsedda mål med oavsedda medel
[Swedish family policy - to set aims with unclear methods]. In: Palme, J. and
Wennemo, I (eds) Generell välfärd. Hot och möjligheter [Generall welfare. Threat
and possibility] Välfärdsprojektet. Skriftserien: Fakta/kunskap, N:o 3. Norstedts
Tryckeri AB, Stockholm.
23
Appendix
Appendix Table 1. Some indicators of levels of family policy benefits in the
Nordic and Liberal welfare states.
Tax relief for dependent children. children (allowances as a percentage of the
average male wages in manufacturing). Source: Wennemo 1994
1975
1980
1985
1990
Denmark
4,4
3,4
2,8
2,4
Finland
4,8
5,4
6,0
6,2
Norway
3,4
6,4
7,6
9,1
Sweden
5,1
6,6
7,7
7,2
Australia
1,0
3,3
3,2
3,4*
United
2,7
8,9
8,8
6,3
Kingdom
United States
Family allowances for a family with two children (allowances as a percentage of
the average male wages in manufacturing). Source: Gauthier 1996, 166.
1975
1980
1985
1990
Denmark
4,4
3,4
2,8
2,4
Finland
4,8
5,4
6,0
6,2
Norway
3,4
6,4
7,6
9,1
Sweden
5,1
6,6
7,7
7,2
Australia1
1,0
3,3
3,2
3,4
United
2,7
8,9
8,8
6,3
Kingdom
United States2 Maternity leave benefits, 1975 – 1990. Source: Gauthier 1996, 80, 174.
1960
1970
1980
1990
Weeks Pay % Weeks Pay % Weeks Pay % Weeks Pay,
%
Denmark
4
FR
11
FR
18
90
28
90
Finland3
6
LS
11
39
47
39
53
80
Norway4
12
FR
12
FR
18
100
35
80
Sweden5
12
FR
26
60
52
70
65
75
Australia6
United
18
FR
18
FR
18
30
18
45
Kingdom7
United States6 -
24
Appendix Table 1 continues…..
FR= flat rate; LS= lump sum
1 Means-test has been imposed on family allowances since 1988. Workers with earnings
equal to the average male wage in manufacturing fall below this means-test, and are
therefore entitled to the full family allowance rates.
2Only means-tested benefits are available.
3Duration of the leave extended from 174 working days in 1975, to 234 in 1980, 258 in
1985 and 263 in 1990.
4 Between 1970 and 1977, a combination of flat rate benefits were paid. They represented
around 30 % of the average female wage in manufacturing. In 1990, mothers were entitled
to 28 weeks of leave at 100 % of salary or to 35 weeks at 80 % of salary.
5In 1980 and 1985, benefits equal to 90 % of earnings paid for the first 9 months, and flat
rate benefits paid for the other 3 months.
6Australia and United States are excluded because of the absence of national maternity
leave scheme.
7Until 1987 flat rate benefits were paid. They represented 30 % of the average of female
wage in manufacturing. From 1987, women with at least 5 years employment with the same
employer became entitled to benefits equal to 90 % for 6 weeks, followed by flat rate
benefits for 12 weeks. Overall, this represents benefits equal to 45 % of earnings for the
whole period.
25
Appendix Table 2. Child poverty trends in the Nordic countries
Country
Total child
poverty
rate
Denmark 1987
Denmark 1992
Finland 1987
Finland 1991
Finland 1995
Norway 1979
Norway 1986
Norway 1991
Norway 1995
Sweden 1967
Sweden 1975
Sweden 1981
Sweden 1987
Sweden 1992
Sweden 1995
Source:Lis
4,7
5,1
2,8
2,3
4,3
4,8
4,4
5,2
3,9
6,4
2,4
4,8
3,6
3,0
2,6
Child poverty
in single
parent
families
7,4
13,9
6,8
5,4
7,2
13,2
22,7
21,6
13,3
25,4
3,1
9,5
5,6
5,2
6,7
Child poverty
in two parent
families
4,4
3,8
2,4
1,9
4,2
2,5
2,1
2,6
2,2
4,3
2,3
4,0
3,2
2,6
1,5
26
Appendix Table 3. Family policy systems in some OECD countries
FIN
SWE
DEN
NRW
BEL
FRA
GER
ITA
LX
NL
SP
UK
AUS
USA
Paid
Extended Money
mater- leave
support
nity
during
leave
extended
leave %
+++
+++
+
+++
+
+
++
+
++
++
++
++
+
+
+++
+
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
++
+
+++
+
+
++
+
-
Separate Leave to Coverage
taxation care for of day
sick
care
children
Family
policy
index
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
11
9
6
7
8
7
5
8
1
4
6
3
3
2
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
++
++
++
+
++
++
+
++
+
-
Source: Millar & Warman 1996: leave to care for sick children, coverage of day care
(except countries Australia and USA). O’Donoghue & Sutherland 1998: Separate taxation
(+ = exists). Knudsen 1999: extended leave: 100 or more weeks = +++, 50-99 weeks =++,
20 – 49 weeks = +, below 20 weeks = -.
Money support for extended leave: yes = +. Family policy index is calculated as following:
++ = 2 points, + = 1 point and - = 0 point.
27
Appendix Figure 1. Development of child poverty in Finland, Norway and Sweden
25
Child poverty in Finland
20
15
Before transfers
After transfers
10
5
0
1966
1971
1976
1981
1987
1990
1995
Years 1966 – 1981 were calculated from Household Survey Data.
25
Child poverty in Norway
20
15
Before transfers
After transfers
10
5
0
1979
1986
1991
1995
28
Appendix Figure 1 continues…
25
Child poverty in Sweden
20
15
Before transfers
After transfers
10
5
0
1967
1975
1981
1987
1992
1995