Study in Lund: Q1 Welfare system your homeland and Sweden. // LUND UNIVERSITY - Swedish Society and Everyday Life 2016

To discuss this topic, I must admit I do not hold economic or political education background. Due to fact that I live abroad for nearly 10 years since age 18, I claim that I do not have a strong knowledge of my country’s welfare system. My observations and conclusions will be held on personal background within my own experience in Sweden that includes four-year life in Umeå, Stockholm and Malmö, and my own family’s experience through the late 1890s and in the 20^th century. Comparing to both welfare states might be difficult as one must know historical politics in depth.

In current times Latvia as many other countries, is looking upon Swedish welfare state, which I personally question. In this answer paper, I try to express my concerns if Swedish welfare really is a great example to other countries.

Reading Lundberg and Åmark article which presents the road to the modern welfare state (Lundberg& Åmark, 2001: 157) it is noticeable the power battlefield between two political parties Liberals and Conservatives. Their struggle trying to find different methods how to industrialize people to become less “self-supporting character” (Wikdhal 2016), and taking an example from other countries, like, Ghent model (Lundberg& Åmark, 2001: 161), often failed.

It is observed that Swedish state tried to improve society with drastic methods which later are noticed as unspoken part of history.

As it was low standard living the security against poverty was important to citizens. The Welfare state was to regulate public sector improving a standard of living, income security and pension reforms, promoting gender equality, and dealing with housing issue. Swedish social security system has worked well in the 20^th century, and as Social Democrats have in power for a very long time, it has created the collective memory of citizens to trust their government. Also, that “Dark Side of history” (Jönsson, 2016) has lead Sweden learnt from it to create the society it is today. But does the ‘old’ modern way still works in current modern times? As Enevold in lecture claimed, the Swedish parliament used to work for long-term ideas, at current times parliament has short-term plans, which fails (Enevold 2016).

In Sweden, gender inequality existed for a long time in 20^th century, as the Swedish model for the welfare state was shaped to the ideology of labour movement, which claimed that the men can produce more than women model (Lundberg& Åmark, 2001: 169). Even in modernisation process women could only be housewives, only some could be in factories until pregnancy. But as its mentioned Sweden changed rapidly, that the Welfare state turned into a family-oriented system. One of the most positive outcomes of Swedish modernisation process is the Union decreasing working hours. That reduced more leisure time for family and hobbies, in short term, enjoy more life. But not all good comes that simple, the side effect of this modernisation process was that “self-supporting” lifestyle changed to consumerism. You may think you have more time for family, work less and earn more, but more commodity needs were raising and instead of saving money, people were spending more for the “standard of living”, for example, at the end of the 1950s a working class could buy a car.

As the standard of living was raising after WWII, one of the main problems Swedish Welfare state need to solve was building new houses. It is famously criticised project in Sweden because the architecture was planned with engineering than architecture to be more functional, to the public, these buildings seemed cold, unfamiliar. Yet it was a new approach to creating a new home, as a lot of investigations and observations on people everyday life was made. The big giant, not one-family housings were not accepted by the public, therefore in the 1970s were build more one-family houses which were more successful.

Personally, I find it conflicting the 20^th century in Sweden. Swedish state’s “social engineering” ideally creating equality so everyone was entitled to the same things, and that nation runs higher than an individual (Jönnson 2016), but at the same time in families, everyone was becoming more individual. That the ‘togetherness’ sharing everyone’s income to a family was taken away.  And all the facts on psychiatry and sterilization programme in Welfare state seems to be impossible to fit in “equality” mindset. Comparing the 20^th century Latvia and Sweden, Latvian society was not changing rapidly as in Sweden. The terror of Soviet occupation stopped Latvia as one solid nation from development. The discourse of sterilizing “bad gene” people is difficult to discuss, as while at the same time Latvian intelligence, farmers and innocent people were killed by being the “good gene” people. For centuries, the human race has shown such intolerance towards each other, that the road to modern Sweden personally shocked me. I do question why would a state doing such terror to its own inhabitants while comparing to my nation’s history such was done by “other nation” for claiming the power over.

What we have discussed in lectures on modernity, and the literature I have read for the course has to lead me to observe to claim that Latvia is perhaps two generations behind Sweden. Current issues what Latvia deals with are noticeable in Swedish 20^th century modernity history. In my guesses, I could say that perhaps current Sweden is a possible lookout of future Latvia as Swedish state model is highly appreciated. But I noticed that exists a lack of knowledge and communication about the Swedish road to modernity in public. Sweden learnt from its “dark side”.  Yet nowadays it seems that need a new social movement as citizens are becoming more sceptical towards the state, as the social security system is weakened due to new political and economic situations globally. (Lundberg& Åmark, 2001: 174) In conclusion, in my beliefs, I argue that Latvia should analyse itself than look after Swedish state model. Nowadays Sweden is consumer driven country while Latvia is still “self-supporting” country. If Swedish always knew they can turn to government for help, Latvians never feels the same tolerance, but it seems its changing in Sweden now. We do not share the same collective history and memory. Therefore, each country needs a new different walk towards a developed future, but create a collective bridge as allies, as neighbours.

Literature.

Enevold, Jessica (2016) Gender equality and play 1&2 [Lecture to SASH60], Lund University. 21^st and 28th November.

Jönsson, Lars-Eric (2016) Swedish Modernity 1 [Lecture to SASH60], Lund University. 11th November.

Lundberg, Urban & Åmark, Klas (2001): “Social rights and social security: the Swedish welfare state, 1900-2000”. In: Scandinavian Journal of History. Vol. 26 (3). ISSN 1653-9345 (pp, 3-26).

Wikdahl, Magnus (2016) Swedish Modernity 2 [Lecture to SASH60], Lund University. 14th November.