Vulnerability and deviance: individual reasoning about the proposal to ban begging in Sweden

Abstract

This article situates the phenomenon of visible begging in the context of the welfare state, exploring the relationship between welfare institutions and social marginalisation. Combining survey data with 26 interviews, the article explores what Swedes think about the proposal to ban begging. The results confirm earlier studies emphasising the norms of egalitarianism and insider privilege in universal welfare states. However, the results identify pragmatism, non-materialist egalitarianism, and non-coercion as complementary frames in individual reasoning about begging. Finally, the results indicate a blurred distinction between vulnerability and deviance in reasoning about begging, nuancing previous ideas about social policy preferences.

Untitled

“…In 2016 the situation of Romani beggars and the possibility of banning begging in specific municipalities became significant topics on the Swedish political agenda (Barker 2017;Zelano 2019). The proposed ban was introduced by the Moderate Party, a centre-right political party and was backed by Christian Democrats and Sweden Democrats.…”

“…The proposed ban was introduced by the Moderate Party, a centre-right political party and was backed by Christian Democrats and Sweden Democrats. These parties contended that the ban was necessary to address the concerns of local residents and business owners, who believed that begging had become problematic in their communities (Ciulinaru 2017;Zelano 2019). However, the proposal faced opposition from other political parties and human rights organizations, who asserted that such a ban would violate the constitutional right to free speech and freedom of expression (Åberg et al 2023).…”

“…However, by emphasizing the structural factors in their countries of origin -'they came to Sweden due to the social vulnerability, discrimination, and lack of work, education, and housing that they suffer from in their home countries' -the responsibility of Sweden, as an EU member, to address the issue is deflected, thus playing down the need for local actions to alleviate the situation. The fact that these statements originate from politicians who previously opposed the ban on begging indicates that Swedish society has become increasingly conservative regarding immigration and social matters (Jylhä et al 2019;Zelano 2019;Hellström 2021). These politicians, representing a spectrum of affiliations from left to right, position themselves as experts on the subject, collectively adopting a critical stance toward begging and portraying it as an ineffective and detrimental social practice, as evidenced by their linguistic choices: '[begging] is not the solution to poverty' , 'is neither a way out of poverty nor exclusion,, and 'does not create good societies' .…”

Who’s afraid of the ‘beggar’? A psychoanalytic interpretation of the crises triggered by the begging of ‘EU migrants’ in Sweden

“…With regard to political economy, the 'EU migrant's' presence interferes with the nation's desire to believe in its political and economic institutions (the welfare state; cf. Zelano, 2018). Ultimately, the presence of the 'EU migrant' exposes underlying antagonisms already extant in Sweden.…”

“…A coherent narrative emerged which understood Sweden as 'the good society' in an unjust world where no one should have to beg (cf. Hübinette & Lundström, 2011;Zelano, 2018). Street begging as a widely visible social practice has indeed been a relatively uncommon phenomenon in modern Sweden until the arrival of the 'EU migrants.'…”