The Progress parties have been variously dubbed 'flash party, protest party', 'tax-revolt party', petty bourgeois protest movement populist party, 'extreme right-wing party' None of these labels passess unambrguously through a critical examination More recently, commentators have sometimes referred to the Progress parties as conventional bourgeois parties. Such a label is however. also problematic, as the social background or class profile of both parties shows an increasing dewaUun from conventional bourgeois parties Our approach is that the Progress parties must be interpreted in connection with the new cleavages in postindustral society We discuss the Progress parties in relation to cleavages emanating from the welfare state, and in particular to postindustrial materialism and the changed role of the working class

In this study we analyse employment commitment and organizational commitment in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, using data from the International Social Survey Programme (1997). We begin with an institutional comparison of the three countries, where it is concluded that a strong institutionalized commitment to work is of longest standing in Sweden and most recent in Denmark. It is concluded that, contrary to expectations, both employment and organizational commitment among the population is weakest in Sweden and strongest in Denmark. Group patterns in commitment are basically similar in all three countries, the only exception being a lower employment commitment among the unemployed in Denmark. In all three countries, differences related to stratification, such as differences between classes and between educational categories, are much more important than family structure in determining commitment. An especially noteworthy finding is that in all three countries, employment commitment is significantly higher among women than among men.

Want to get experience? Want to get any ideas to create new things in your life? Read democracy and citizenship in scandinavia now! By reading this book as soon as possible, you can renew the situation to get the inspirations. Yeah, this way will lead you to always think more and more. In this case, this book will be always right for you. When you can observe more about the book, you will know why you need this. When reading the PDF, you can see how the author is very reliable in using the words to create sentences. It will be also the ways how the author creates the diction to influence many people. But, it's not nonsense, it is something. Something that will lead you is thought to be better. Something that will make your feel so better. And something that will give you new things. This is it, the democracy and citizenship in scandinavia.

The debate about the future of universal social programmes has been raging for years, both in social-democratic and in liberal welfare states. The objective of this article is to contribute to the literature on universality by analyzing the evolution of universal social programmes in two social-democratic and two liberal countries: Denmark, Sweden, Canada and the UK. This choice of countries provides the opportunity to investigate whether the principle and practice of universality has fared differently both within and between countries. The analysis focuses primarily on the national level while exploring three policy areas: pensions, healthcare and family policy, specifically child benefits and day care. The main conclusion of our comparative analysis is clear: among our two liberal and two social-democratic countries, the institutional strength of universality varies greatly from one policy area and one country to another. Considering this, there is no such a thing as a universal decline of universality.

On the basis of a Danish panel study of the long–term unemployed 1994–1999, the article challenges core premises underlying labour market reforms, assigning too high a priority to work and work incentives, and too little priority to social protection. Economic hardship has become widespread among long–term unemployed even in Denmark, and this is a more serious threat against well–being than unemployment as such. Generous social security, denounced as ‘passive support’, enables the unemployed to cope with their situation, and there are no signs of any ‘dependency culture’. Incentives in terms of economic hardship may stimulate active job seeking but the panel study reveals that it has no positive effect on subsequent labour market integration.