At the heart of the Nordic occupational welfare model: Occupational welfare trajectories in Sweden and Denmark

Abstract

Sweden and Denmark are countries with a strong tradition of the involvement of labor market partners in welfare policies, and this begs the question whether this influences the development of occupational welfare. This article depicts the reasons for, and the development of, occupational welfare, especially in relation to pensions, sickness benefit, and parental leave. The interaction between an in principle universal tax‐financed welfare state and the use of occupational welfare, often supported using fiscal welfare, implies a deviation from the Nordic model, as universality is no longer guaranteed. The article further raises the issue of whether this will increase inequality because of the dualization on the labor market, and whether Sweden and Denmark are similar or dissimilar in relation to the development in the use of, and the impact of, occupational welfare. Lastly, the article discusses the fact that occupational welfare might mitigate the consequence of retrenchment by passing on expenditures to employers. Thus, arguing that an increase in occupational welfare is due to the gradual reduction in welfare state benefits, and that trade unions' strength has influenced the level. The conclusion of the article is that what social partners thought of as a supplement has now moved the Nordic welfare states away from their universal approach.

Social Policy Perspectives on Economic Inequality in Wealthy Countries

“…A second line of inquiry explores the balance of benefits provision between the state and labor market. For example, Greve () and Natali et al () examine the impacts of labor‐market “dualization,” which refers to the shift of social protections to “occupational welfare,” typically associated with employment‐related benefits, which was originally described by Titmuss (). Scholars have posited that the more recent shifts to occupational welfare, including employer‐sponsored pensions and health benefits, could crowd out traditional government‐provided social protections, contributing further to economic inequalities.…”

“…While Natali et al () do not find widespread evidence that occupational welfare is crowding out traditional government social welfare, “access to occupational benefits is not evenly distributed across all socio‐demographic groups” (p. 444), reiterating the potential impacts of continued shift toward occupational welfare in states like the United Kingdom, where there is positive evidence of crowding out effects. Greve () concludes that in the Nordic states of Sweden and Denmark, there is evidence that occupational welfare is associated with reduced pressure on welfare state expenditures. Relatedly, Wilson () focuses on the politics of “predistributional” minimum wage legislation in five OECD countries, finding that such policies allow governments to shift the burden of inequality reduction from fiscally strained governments to employers .…”

“…In addition to these aggregate changes in redistribution, researchers describe a qualitative shift in many European countries in the 2000s and 2010s, from a traditional risk-protection approach (e.g., unemployment protections) toward a human capital development approach (e.g., job training, child-care support) (Busemeyer, de la Porte, Garritzmann, & Pavolini, 2018;Cantillon, 2011;Pintelon, Cantillon, Van den Bosch, & Whelan, 2013). These changes were accompanied by changes in family-work arrangements (e.g., Hook, 2015;Saxonberg, 2013), market-based social protection (e.g., Greve, 2018;Natali, Keune, Pavolini, & Seeleib-Kaiser, 2018), and shifts in budgetary resources (e.g., Van Vliet & Wang, 2015). During the same period, the United States decentralized selected redistributive social programs and reformed social programs with the purpose of incentivizing work participation (Bruch, Meyers, & Gornick, 2018).…”

The Sustainability of Public Social Services: A Qualitative Study

“…Inter-professional collaboration in health care is a fundamental tool in user services [38]. In some instances, coordination between services [1] and collaboration in health care both fail in user care [39]. Perhaps the lack of coordination mentioned is due to the large number of users received by social workers and the lack of system resources [29].…”

Myths, narratives and welfare states: an introduction

“…Often, more generally, that the welfare state reduces productivity and economic growth (Garfinkel and Smeeding 2015). The first issue about whether the welfare is large in the US is in fact the story about whether occupational and fiscal welfare is included in the analysis (Greve 2014(Greve , 2018Morel, Touzet, and Zemmour 2018b;Sinfield 2019), that is, that only looking at direct public spending reduces the estimated size of the welfare state including the level of spending. In the US it is argued that employer-provided welfare will increase the size of the welfare state by 50 per cent (Greve 2014(Greve , 2018Morel, Touzet, and Zemmour 2018b;Sinfield 2019).…”