Descriptions of Inequality: The Swedish Approach to Welfare Research

Abstract

By the 1950s it had already become clear that, in spite of its widespread use, per capita GNP is an insufficient measure of the well‐being of citizens. Thus, in 1954, an expert group within the United Nations suggested that we should not rely on monetary measures alone: the measurement of well‐being should be based on several different components, together making up the level of living.1 Partly influenced by the UN expert group, Johansson made level of living, seen as a set of components, the basic concept in the first Swedish Level of Living Survey conducted in 1968.2 This survey has been followed by a number of similar studies, both in Sweden and in the other Nordic countries. To exemplify the Swedish approach to welfare research, I will here use the first survey from 1968 and its direct followers, conducted by the Swedish Institute for Social Research in 1974 and 1981. Apart from minor details, however, what I say also applies to what has been done by the Swedish Central Statistical Office as well as by other Scandinavian research organizations.3 The measurement and description of welfare implies a response to a series of questions. One concerns the basis of welfare measurement: should it be related to the needs or the resources of individuals? Another question is whether she herself or an outside observer should judge the individual's welfare. Furthermore, we must decide which types of indicator to use and how to use them, how relevant descriptions should be provided, and how we can give an overall picture of the individual's welfare. I will return to these questions later and discuss how they have been answered in the Swedish level of living surveys. Before doing so I will present some results from these surveys in the hope of making the issues clearer and more concrete. In 1965 the Swedish government set up a commission with the task of describing the conditions and problems of low income earners. The commission planned its task in three steps: (1) a study of the distribution of factor income, (2) a study of the distribution of disposable income, and (3) a study of the distribution of welfare in non‐monetary terms. This third study was carried out by a group of sociologists who communicated their results to the commission in a series of reports. For the purpose of the third study, around 6,000 people in the 15–75 age range living in Sweden were interviewed in 1968. In 1974 and 1981 surviving people under 76 years of age still living in Sweden were interviewed again. At both these later interviews young people and recent immigrants were added to the sample in order to make it representative for the Swedish adult population. The interviewees were asked about their living conditions in nine different areas or components of life. A large number of indicators were used for most of the components. The components together with some typical indicators are shown in Table 1. 1. Health and access to health care Ability to walk 100 metres, various symptoms of illness, contacts with doctors and nurses 2. Employment and working conditions Unemployment experiences, physical demands of work, possibilities to leave the place of work during work hours 3. Economic resources Income and wealth, property, ability to cover unforeseen expenses of up to $1,000 within a week 4. Education and skills Years of education, level of education reached 5. Family and social integration Marital status, contacts with friends and relatives 6. Housing Number of persons per room, amenities 7. Security of life and property Exposure to violence and thefts 8. Recreation and culture Leisure‐time pursuits, vacation trips 9. Political resources Voting in elections, membership of unions and political parties, ability to file complaints 1. Health and access to health care Ability to walk 100 metres, various symptoms of illness, contacts with doctors and nurses 2. Employment and working conditions Unemployment experiences, physical demands of work, possibilities to leave the place of work during work hours 3. Economic resources Income and wealth, property, ability to cover unforeseen expenses of up to $1,000 within a week 4. Education and skills Years of education, level of education reached 5. Family and social integration Marital status, contacts with friends and relatives 6. Housing Number of persons per room, amenities 7. Security of life and property Exposure to violence and thefts 8. Recreation and culture Leisure‐time pursuits, vacation trips 9. Political resources Voting in elections, membership of unions and political parties, ability to file complaints In the first survey in 1968 no questions were asked about security of life and property, whereas questions were included about diet and nutrition. In a report on the three surveys which was published in 19844 the overriding aim was to answer three questions: Had there been an average change in the level of living between 1968 and 1981? Were there any differences in level of living between different population groups, specifically between men and women, social classes, age groups, or regions? Had there been any changes between 1968 and 1981 in differences in level of living between groups? Our attempts to answer these questions followed several routes. Some examples will illustrate how the results were presented. Three questions were asked about physical mobility: whether the respondent could walk 100 metres briskly without problems, whether he or she could go up and down stairs without difficulty, and whether he or she could run 100 metres without difficulty. In Figure 1 we show results regarding the proportion saying that they had problems in at least two of these three respects, which in nearly all cases included those who said that they had problems in running and climbing stairs. The figure is a diagrammatic representation of the outcome of a logarithmic regression analysis.5 Regression Diagram Of Proportions Of Disabled People The diagram is an attempt to present a complicated reality in a simple form, though on the basis of a fairly sophisticated statistical technique. Technically, the horizontal lines within each subfield represent regression coefficients and their possible slopes give information on the interaction between the factor in question (sex, age, community, and class) and year of investigation. The vertical lines indicate the approximate length of 85 per cent confidence intervals. Our hope, of course, is that the statistically untrained reader, through such diagrams, will be able to get a grasp of the variations and changes in level of living. The interpretation of Figure 1 would be as follows: the signs in the leftmost field all appear on about the same level, thereby indicating that there has been no overall change from 1968 to 1981 in the proportion of disabled people. The next field to the right shows that women tend to be disabled more often than men, when other factors are accounted for. That the horizontal lines converge slightly (read from left to right) suggests that this difference has decreased slightly during the period. The field thereafter indicates what we could expect: that older people are disabled more often than younger, but also that this difference has diminished between 1968 and 1981. The following field shows that there are no clear differences in this respect between cities, towns, and the countryside, and the rightmost field shows that members of the working class (III) are disabled more often (having accounted for age, etc.) than members of the upper middle class (I), with the lower middle class (II) in between. In Figure 2 we show the corresponding results for political resources, in the sense of having taken part in opinion‐forming activities.6 Regression Diagram Of Proportions Of People Participating In Opinion‐Forming Activities Figure 2 indicates that the proportion participating in opinion‐forming activities has increased between 1968 and 1981, that men are more active than women but that this difference has diminished, that age differences have disappeared, that there are no differences between different types of communities, and that there are great and non‐changing differences between the social classes. Table 2 shows, in a more conventional fashion, the inequality in income from employment between different classes and occupational groups. The overall income inequality decreased over the period 1967–80. This decrease was partly the result of diminishing differences between occupational groups, but partly also of lessening inequality within classes. Wages in occupations mainly employing women increased considerably during the period. All employees 74.6 87.8 89.6 100 100 100 49 41 37 Professionals executives in private employment 135.4 161.3 153.7 182 184 172 36 32 34 Professionals in public employment 140.7 141.2 131.7 189 161 147 32 34 32 Foremen 78.4 92.8 93.2 105 106 104 16 19 20 Private technical and clerical 65.0 19 16 20 20 37 in government 85 19 in government 85 All employees 74.6 87.8 89.6 100 100 100 49 41 37 Professionals executives in private employment 135.4 161.3 153.7 182 184 172 36 32 34 Professionals in public employment 140.7 141.2 131.7 189 161 147 32 34 32 Foremen 78.4 92.8 93.2 105 106 104 16 19 20 Private technical and clerical 65.0 19 16 20 20 37 in government 85 19 in government 85 In an attempt to get a more picture of and change in welfare problems at the level we the number of components, out of for which we had conditions for the The components were resources, political resources, social and Figure shows the and change in the proportion three or more of these Regression For Proportions Three In the a Figure shows that the proportion with problems has decreased slightly over that women are more often to problems than men, that problems are that there are and differences between different types of community, and that problems are more in the working class than in other classes. the differences between to be over a in the average level of living to have taken place in the years in the areas of and to men considerably in most The differences between age decreased slightly in of resources, as the of young and people to those in the age groups. between the social classes decreased are some examples of how variations and changes in the level of living in Sweden have been is the this I will first discuss the with some of the problems of and some of its In doing this I will return to the questions individual's over resources in the of and physical social security and so through which the can and direct living This was the of level of living in the first of the concept in with the 1968 The is the individual's over which was from on but a of over resources can be within as The on several different components of welfare was taken from the of the United Nations expert group, to To judge the level of living of an or a group, we have to their resources and conditions in several respects, which are not between each To have for conditions is not we also have to about and social conditions of work, in order to the level of living. is no through which the different could be or on a or by which it would be possible to decide which of two men is of for health but conditions than the or level of living at least in the to be based on needs or on their needs are made the is with of resources are made the is with to those needs more to and direct living the individual's level of living will be an of of as to be to concept of as well‐being that a to in as a large of not a to a level of it is of in To the concept of level of living on resources than on needs has some as an active who resources to and basic and not have to decide what these needs the is to use resources in the other we have to decide what the most resources are in so we have to for what purpose they can be Thus, or we must a on what the most areas of life the areas it is most that the should be able to living it not to the concept of level of living to resources Some are resources, but this not their most be as in Furthermore, some such as the of the work or the amenities and in the are for the individual's but can be as resources in a the level of living concept would be we based it on resources without the same set of resources is not of of the A education, say in be of on the in the it was but of in must the in which the resources are to be resources and the of the they are to be used together the of for their In the taken in Swedish welfare research is that the individual's resources, the in which they are to be and most living make up level of living. This to be to as he that of well‐being is the ability to is no which could in what the most resources and conditions have to on mainly The nine components to Table not a but similar of the areas relevant to level of living the same the over to some of and The is to some influenced by the and culture of in a such a would for access to and nutrition. is also that such have a political they which are at least in possible to Thus, for and are in spite of for the individual's The components to conditions and problems which we all during and which are of such that there are attempts to with in all One of the of the level of living concept and of the between is that no simple indicator of level of living can be on an or on an and changes in the level of living must be for each A picture of and change will of be and no has been to the of how to present such a The indicator based on the number of components for which problems were shown in Figure was used as part of an attempt to the and of welfare The number of is a indicator of the of an which each different of an This is of and the indicator with I not that research in this is possible we not such based on or a of and description often also the of indicators already have to be taken at the the health we have to decide which symptoms we should and how they should be together in or several indicators for make similar when we decide which of a work we should and corresponding must be made for the other components. as the question is not whether we should make or not but when we should make and when we should leave answer has been to this but some been of indicators to different components have not been for the in Figure indicators have in some cases been together to but often for and in cases some of factor the indicators to different areas of the level of living have not been measures but The to this approach is that the number of for a description of the level of living is to get an overall picture of the level of living, it is possible to how the different components are related to we more than large number of indicators and present at a I that within components, we can in cases order conditions in such a that we get a number of or in some cases which or nearly would This would be we were working with classes of problems, or with conditions from so we will up with a fairly large number of say at with a or of conditions for each of the nine components would still not be possible to a measure of but it would be possible to between different types of welfare and to out how these types we order all types in to each we can within of A which all the conditions of but which also some could be as more than the to a Of we would still we each of nine is in a we a of information by the and will have to different conditions the same will get possible Thus, we have by that not a which is for of and it should be possible to such the number of a number of welfare components are with each other so some would be In the Swedish level of living study we for a for problems with social and a of activities to go were problems which were older people. In a similar problems and problems within the working class and the and the and a low level of political which is related to level, most of such we could a number of types of welfare problems, we would that different types are within the social and The question about who should judge the level of or the partly to that about needs or the concept of welfare is based on it to measure its level by people whether they are or this the concept is based on The with an approach based on of their of is that it is partly by their level of that by what they to be their This that how people are is to a large to how well they have to their present People who have conditions for a period out to be more and to this to have a level of living, than a who is used to a but who has a minor of an outcome which to the individual's level of living in a which it as influenced as possible by the individual's of This all the more as the individual's level of living is to a large based on over resources which can be used for the which he most The question related to whether we should be at conditions or their with these conditions is whether we should use or a question which was within the social indicators the and are slightly so it to use the and the is asked to resources and as and have in the would be typical questions. we use indicators the is asked to with or is the in the would be typical questions The difference between the two types of indicator should not be indicators and the indicators used by for the different are often To the on indicators not that whether people are or not is to be of no the I would say that it is of great to out how resources their level of of course, how this in their resources and I that level of be in of resources and conditions and is by the use of to the that welfare research is to in is part of its but not of its it that indicators should be The for should to conditions and should be in of such and should through their activities as in the political not through survey questions and That for should be set up in of not in of with these is the that the and of the to and that is the basis for of the suggested to in A level of living, as is not to all the in life. This is no as I are other or of and we to study they must be and in their A concept which is to would be of those who a level of living are not and is well that the between conditions and is and are two different of the in life. A who has amenities at than is in that respect of whether he is more or with so that he had the amenities of the he would become and In a sample we would to get some between conditions and however, it is whether we should any at all on an level, at least not basic needs for and are People will not become more when the level of living their is the of their conditions that their and this to a large to be the we with any between conditions and different in the several indicators have been used to change over and differences between various in their level of living. This has been partly the of the indicators in most cases on an level that it is not possible to an indicator without making some of partly also the result of regarding inequality as a as an political In these inequality has been as the than over the population at large more through differences and than or This is a result of the but it is also based on the that the are in such a that people will often be able to in and that such a description of conditions in will be to a large part of the population. To the description of inequality to a social will make the description more to the political it is a to to get part of the of in between we two people and that on to education the other this could well be the first a level of later in life the other is more in we that is with the same education, is the first well to work as as possible and to the other has different it is more to make such an we that people of the same but of different social make different or we differences in between persons with similar living in different of course, out the that the differences in these cases are still to different of but those who so would have to make their that such with for social class and The study of inequality in as he

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 240 citations exist upstream.