Transcript The Growth of the Swedish Welfare System

The Growth of the Swedish Welfare
System
The “People’s Home” is born
”Folkhemmet”, or ”The People’s Home”
• The core normative concept underlying the welfare state
• The meaning: everyone is taken care of; not just the rich, nor only
the poor, but everyone regardless of income.
• “Generell välfärd” or “general welfare”, meaning that provisions are
given equally to all – not income-related.
• Also, a wide array of services: free education, free healthcare,
sports centers, libraries, “book buses”, “fluorine ladies”…
• The history of this concept is very interesting and revealing!
The history of ”folkhemmet”
• In the wider meaning, used by Rudolf Kjellén (1864-1922), famous
Swedish political scientist and conservative politician and MP.
• Kjellén was professor at…this department of political science (you
can see his portrait on the fifth floor, next to Bo Rothstein’s room!)
• Kjellén influenced Ernst Wigforss as well as Gunnar Myrdal; top
social democratic intellectuals.
• Kjellén also influenced others…he coined the concept of
“geopolitics” and used the notions of “Reich” and “Lebensraum”…
• (He also spoke of the “Ideas of 1914” as opposed to the “Ideas of
1789” and supported Germany in WW I, like many other famous
Swedish intellectuals at the time).
“Folkhemmet” – why?
• In the latter half of the 19th century, Sweden was rapidly
industrializing.
• The last famine was in the 1860’s, but from 1870-1970,
growth in Sweden exceeded that of other countries.
• As workers flocked to the cities, a worker’s movement
began forming.
• SAP, the Social Democratic Worker’s Party, was formed
in 1889.
• Two main goals: 8 hour week, and universal suffrage.
(continued)
•
In the early 20th century, Sweden was still largely conservative and the king
relatively powerful. The intellectual elites, people like Kjellén, were Germanfriendly.
•
But world war I was a setback for the conservative establishment. The
prime minister, Hammarsköld, was nicknamed “Hungersköld”, because
there was little food due to the war.
•
Fearing a revolution, the king and the conservatives gave in to the demands
advanced by liberals and social democrats: in 1919, the 8-hour week was
introduced, and in 1921, universal suffrage.
•
The 1920’s saw the return of rapid growth and Swedish companies were
very successful. Politically, the country was dominated by various centreright coalition governments.
•
The social democrats were becoming a powerful force, but they had yet to
attain power and stay there.
“Folkhemmet” becomes a social
democratic vision
•
In 1928, social democrat leader Per Albin Hansson is looking for an ideal to rally
people behind the social democrats. He wants to avoid being branded as a left-wing
extremist.
•
In the 1928 elections, the so-called “Cossack elections”, the social democrats are
described as “Bolsheviks” by their opponents and the conservatives win.
•
So the social democrats are looking for something to unite people in a national as
well as socialist vision, to become a mainstream party and gain power.
•
It is now that, in a brilliant rhetorical move, Per Albin Hansson borrows the
conservative notion of a “people’s home” and makes it his own key ideal.
•
He tries to decide between a “citizen’s home” and a “people’s home” and chooses the
latter.
•
Soon afterwards, the Great Depression strikes the Western World and the social
democrats win the elections in 1932. They have finally gained power and will keep it
until 1976!
Two election posters: 1928, conservative poster accusing the social
democrats of being ”Bolsheviks”; 1936, social democrat poster showing
the vision of a Swedish people’s home (note the strong, blonde, male
workers and the row of identical houses!)
To conclude:
• The social democrats were able to take the vision of their
opponents and make it their own, by a daring synthesis
of Swedish nationalism and socialist modernism.
• The ideas of the pre-World War I conservative
intellectuals were not simply rejected, but rather
transformed into a new framework!
• The social democrats were able to become a broad,
national, middle-of-the-road party (and a so-called “catch
all-party” getting votes from all over the socioeconomic
and political field, not only from workers).
The 1930’s: the social democrats
gain power
So the social democrats finally formed a
stable government – now what?
•
After their victory in the 1932 elections (note the timing: Roosevelt won in the US the
very same year and launched the New Deal, and Hitler came to power in Germany
the year after), the social democrats set to work fixing the economy.
•
By the 1930’s, the social democrats had managed to attract a number of brilliant
intellectuals, including Ernst Wigforss and Gunnar Myrdal, both influenced by Rudolf
Kjellén. But both had also been influenced by famous British economist J.M. Keynes.
•
Wigforss became minister of finance and Myrdal was a professor at the Stockholm
business school and part of the “Stockholm School” in economy (he later received the
Nobel Prize in economy).
•
The main goal was to keep unemployment down – this was a key part of social
democrat policy up until the 1990’s and also, until that time, it was successful. By
1935, more people were employed than before the crisis hit. Unemployment in
Sweden was generally low until the early 1990’s.
•
In 1933, the social democrats struck a deal with the farmers’ party and Sweden
avoided both economic collapse and dictatorship. From now on, Sweden became a
model for intellectuals abroad (“Sweden – The Middle Way”).
Swedish compromise: the
Saltsjöbaden Treaty, 1938
• In 1938, trade union leaders met with business leaders
in Saltsjöbaden, an upper class Stockholm suburb. They
agreed to establish a council with representative from
both sides to solve conflicts on the labor market and to
reduce strikes.
• The so-called “spirit of Saltsjöbaden” characterized the
Swedish labor market for decades afterwards.
• The Treaty is still accepted, but was largely modified to
the advantage of workers in the mid-1970’s.
Why was Sweden successful in the 1930’s?
• A left-wing argument:
because the social
democrats were
influenced by Keynes
they kept Sweden out of
the crisis by adopting
stimulus measures and
public employment.
• A right-wing counterargument: the Swedish
economy had been
basically strong since the
1870’s. Taxes were still
low, and the labor market
flexible. Sweden emerged
unscathed because of
these basic traits, not
because of the social
democrats.
Why did Sweden avoid strong communist and/or
fascist movements in the 1930’s?
• Because the social democrats became the main political force and
they were democratic reformists. The conservative elites became
marginalized.
• Because the economic crisis was largely evaded.
• Because Sweden did not take part in World War I so there was no
feeling of bitterness due to the outcome of the war.
• Because the social democrats internalized some notions that would
now be seen as “fascist” or worse, such as racial hygiene and
forced sterilization of “unfit” people.
• The social democratic “people’s home” was a strongly nationalist
vision with some racial/racist overtones.
Racial biology and sterilization: the dark side
of the “People’s Home”
•
The State Institute for Racial Biology, the
first of its kind in the world, was founded
in 1922. It was supported by leading
politicians from all parties, from
conservatives to social democrats.
•
Forced sterilizations were introduced in
1934.
•
In the 1930’s, research was carried out to
measure and describe the “racial
characteristics” of the Swedish
population.
•
Most of those sterilized were poor
women. They were deemed “unfit” or
“promiscuous”, or were considered to be
“gypsies”, etc by a doctor.
•
The aim was to acquire “a solid
theoretical foundation for an exact racial
hygiene and a rational population policy.”
•
Sometimes, women were only given an
abortion if they also agreed to be
sterilized. Some were tricked that they
were only having surgery for some made
up disease.
•
Between 1934 and 1975, 63.000 people
were sterilized. Forced sterilizations were
prohibited in 1976.
•
The institute was abolished in 1958.
World War II
•
In 1939, Swedish Prime Minister Per Albin Hansson famously claimed that Sweden was
well prepared in the event of a war.
•
This was a lie. The Swedish armed forces were very weak and lacked modern equipment.
•
A coalition government led by the social democrats but including all other parties except
the communists was formed in 1939 and stayed in power until 1945.
•
When Nazi Germany invaded Denmark and Norway in April 1940, Sweden remained
neutral and was forced to strike a deal with the Germans.
•
German troops were allowed to move over Swedish territory and the Swedish mines
provided the Germans with the iron ore they needed for their war effort.
•
Some researchers claim that Sweden came very close to rejecting German claims in 1940
which would a) have led to a constitutional crisis since the king was formally in charge and
was pro-German and b) would have very possibly resulted in a German invasion (some
claim that Ernst Wigforss, the minister of finance, wanted to reject the German claims. On
the other hand, it emerged in 2009 that Wigforss actually accepted a huge loan to the
Germans in 1941. The story remains murky…)
The Post-War Era: “The Record
Years”
After the war ended…
• …the coalition government was dissolved in 1945.
• Per Albin Hansson died in 1946 (on the tram, on his way
home late in the evening).
• Tage Erlander became the new leader of the social
democrats and the new prime minister. Erlander was a
compromise candidate and lacked the charisma of either
his predecessor Per Albin Hansson or his successor Olof
Palme. Ironically, he was prime minister during the most
successful period for the social democrats and for
Sweden as well.
Per Albin Hansson, PM 1932-1946/Tage Erlander, PM 1946-1969
1948 elections and onwards…
•
…The social democrats expected a sharp postwar recession and planned to
nationalize large parts of the business sector (such as insurance companies).
•
But this recession never materialized. On the contrary, the Swedish economy
boomed after the war. Sweden was not destroyed in the war so the modern industrial
sector was well equipped to export machinery, ships, and electronic goods all over
the world.
•
The social democrats settled on incremental reform. They agreed to let the big
companies stay private and to expand the public sector and reform the pension
system and the education system. Rapid economic growth meant there was no need
to hold back on demands.
•
The social democrats rarely got over 50% of the vote, but they managed to stay in
power by relying on other parties, both to the left and right of them, and due to the
Swedish system with a bicameral parliament which meant it was very difficult for
opposition parties to gain power.
Pension reforms
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A small government pension was introduced in 1913: “folkpension” (“people’s
pension”).
The big political battle of the 1950’s was about pension reform, the “ATP-question”.
White-collar professionals had an additional pension, but not others workers, e.g. in
the industrial sector. Therefore, the social democrats and the communists wanted a
new pension system: the idea was to complement the basic “people’s pension” with a
mandatory extra-pension (ATP).
The centre-right parties did not want a mandatory system but wanted instead to rely
on free agreements between workers and business/industry owners.
Parliament was split evenly between left and centre-right parties, but one liberal MP
chose not to vote: thus the social democrat proposal won in parliament in 1959.
In the new system, which came into force in 1960, the “people’s pension”, which was
a basic fee equal for everyone, was complemented with the mandatory extra-pension
(ATP).
The latter was generously based upon the “best 15 years” of income!
It was paid for by a mandatory pension fee on all salaries, but for high-income
earners, the fee was higher than the actual return, i.e. became a pure tax.
Housing reforms
•
The pension reform built up massive
cash reserves, paid for by the pension
fee; these were now used to finance
an ambitious apartment building
program.
•
The goal was to build a million
apartments in ten years (1965-1975),
hence the name: “the million program”.
•
This goal was achieved and as a
result, 25 % of Swedish housing
consists of “million program” buildings.
•
However, with time, many of these
“rational” apartment building areas
came to be criticized for being ugly
and soulless.
•
Also, at the same time, massive
demolitions were carried out in city
centers, something which was also
later criticized.
1970-1990…troubles on the
horizon
Olof Palme
• In 1969, Olof Palme took over as party leader of
the social democrats and as prime minister.
• When Palme took over, it seemed the situation
was perfect: the economy was still booming,
Sweden was extremely rich, the social
democrats had a uniquely powerful position and
had been in power since 1932.
• Yet, things would quickly change for the worse…
Palme: 1969-1976
•
Palme was young and charismatic. He wanted to take the welfare state one step
further and to realize “democratic socialism”. A wave of left-wing radicalism among
intellectuals and students was a source of inspiration but also a potential threat to
social democratic hegemony. Palme wanted to include some of the new radical ideas
into the mainstream and into economic and welfare policies.
•
He started expanding the welfare state and to raise taxes to previously unseen levels.
•
At the same time, however, the global economy changed for the worse. Growth
stagnated all over the Western World. Also, Sweden got a new constitution which
entered into force in 1975. A new election system and a unicameral parliament had
been introduced in 1973. The social democrats started to do worse in elections, the
centre-right opposition parties to do better.
•
Palme tried to address the situation by a) introducing a number of radical reforms and
b) meeting the global economic crises with an ambitious policy of economic stimulus.
Palme’s reforms
•
Palme introduced a host of reforms, e.g.:
•
A raise of foreign aid to 1 % of GDP per year.
•
A massive building program for apartments carried out (the completion of the “million
program”).
•
40 hour work week; until 1971, 8 hours/6 days a week. After 1971, only 5 days a
week.
•
Increased child benefits, dental care and more generous system for those unable to
work for health reasons.
•
LAS = a law demanding that people get to keep their jobs unless there is “factual
reason” to let them go, i.e. a lack of work to be done, or personal misconduct.
Palme was initially successful…
• His policies seemed to work. Until 1975, the economic situation in
Sweden was better than in the rest of the Western World.
• Unemployment was considered high at a little over 2 %, but put in
perspective, was very low.
• Swedish growth remained relatively high and the public finances
were strong.
• Up until 1975, Sweden remained the fourth richest country in the
world in GDP/capita.
• Palme’s reforms had arguably made Sweden into the most
egalitarian society in the world.
The end of social democratic
hegemony
•
In the mid-70’s, things took a turn for the worse. The state budget as % of GDP
increased from 26 to 38 % during the 70’s. Famous Swedish author Astrid Lindgren
accused the social democratic government of having become like a witch, stealing
people’s money with too high taxes.
•
People were dissatisfied with the housing programs and city center demolitions and
there was a widespread impression that the state had become too big and
bureaucratic. In 1971, hippies and little old ladies united to prevent the cutting down
of a row of old elm trees in central Stockholm, for a planned subway exit. They
succeeded and the elm trees were preserved. This became a symbolic question
about the dangers of too much modern-rational planning (“the elm tree battle”).
•
The Centre Party (previously Farmers’ Party) under Thorbjörn Fälldin challenged the
social democrats and made the future of nuclear power a symbolic issue. The Centre
Party wanted a less technocratic Sweden with more local freedom. They were not
opposed to the welfare system but wanted to halt the growth of the state and to stop
raising taxes.
•
In 1976, the centre-right opposition won the elections and Fälldin became prime
minister of a coalition government.
Swedish taxes were actually comparatively low
until Palme; it was only in the 1970’s that they
became higher than the OECD average
Sveriges skattetryck förr och nu
Andel av BNP
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1900
1915
1930
1945
1960
1975
Källa: Rodr iguez E. (1981), Den svenska skattehistor ien (1900-1975), Skattever ket (1976-1992), SCB (1993-)
Vär den för 2009 och 2010 är pr eliminär a år suppgifter .
1990
2005
År
Hämtat: 2011-09-18
Andel av BNP
Olof Palme/Thorbjörn Fälldin
The late 1970’s…
•
This was a difficult period for Sweden. The economy entered into a crisis,
some industries started going bankrupt, and public finances got worse. The
public debt expanded.
•
Several centre-right governments were formed and split up between 1976
and 1982. Despite winning the elections again in 1979, the centre-right
parties simply did not agree and could not form effective governments.
•
Little was done to change policies in any direction. In general, the old social
democratic policies were kept in place while the government tried to support
failing industries. Taxes were not lowered and not much was done
substantially.
•
The centre-right parties disagreed about nuclear power: the governing
centre party was against, but the conservatives were for nuclear power.
The 1980’s
•
Olof Palme and the social democrats won the 1982 elections. They devalued the Swedish
krona and the economy turned around as the export industries were suddenly highly
competitive. The downside was that ordinary workers’ wages stagnated and inflation was
high. Also, the banking and finance sectors were deregulated in 1985 in an effort by the
social democrats to further stimulate the economy. All of the above led to a speculative
housing bubble and rapidly rising stocks.
•
On the other hand, trade unions demanded that employee funds be instigated, i.e. highly
profitable companies had to pay a special tax that was used for a fund whereby employees
could buy stocks in a company. This is why IKEA left Sweden! Palme was actually against
this idea but had to do it because of trade union pressures.
•
The welfare system was kept in place. It was on the one hand a very egalitarian society
with many positive sides: unemployment was extremely low, people were well provided for
and Sweden remained a relatively rich country. But little was done to effectively address
the long-term threats of stagnating wages, high taxes, speculative bubbles and declining
productivity in the industrial sector.
•
In a sense, Sweden in the 1980’s was a strange hybrid of quasi-socialist, egalitarian utopia
and quasi-capitalist, financial, speculative utopia. Some neo-liberal ideas were gaining
ground among some social democrats, especially around the ministry of finance.
•
When Palme was shot in Stockholm in 1986, there was a sense of shock, of national
trauma. A foreboding sense that this might be the end of the “people’s home”.
The 1990’s
•
In 1990, the economy rapidly started crashing. Sweden entered into the “90’s crisis”,
the deepest since the 1930’s.
•
A centre-right coalition under conservative PM Carl Bildt governed with the tacit
support of the xenophobic “New Democracy” party 1991-1994. But just like in the
1970’s, the centre-right coalition eventually split up: this time over the building of the
Öresund Bridge between Malmö and Copenhagen, which the Centre Party opposed.
Later on, the bridge was built anyway (and became hugely popular).
•
A number of new reforms were introduced but the economy continued to decline for
several years and the public debt exploded.
•
To many, this was the end of the “people’s home” and the Swedish “middle way”. In
1994, the social democrats regained power and Göran Persson became minister of
finance and then prime minister. But Persson continued to cut down on the welfare
system and did not reverse the reforms introduced by the centre-right parties.
•
Sweden has never regained its economic position in relative terms. Although high
growth returned in the late 1990’s, Sweden is still considerably poorer in comparison
to other countries than it was before 1990.
Carl Bildt/Göran Persson
Welfare reforms in the 1990’s
•
Employee funds were abolished.
•
“Free schools” were introduced in 1992: public money was given for private schools with different
curricula. There are a host of free schools in Sweden now; however, education results have
worsened since the reform (but not necessarily because of it).
•
Healthcare (private clinics)
•
New public management (Neo-liberal ideas for public sector)
•
•
Pension reforms, 1994 & 1998. The new Swedish system is quite complex:
18,5 % fee of income, whereof 2,5 % “premipension” for investment in stocks, funds, etc., either
by yourself or in state-run funds. “Guarantee pension” a basic pension for those with low income,
currently about 750 euros/month (only if you have lived at least 40 years in Sweden; otherwise
about 460 euros a month in support).
You can also take out a smaller part in pension (from age 61) while continuing to work (till age 67).
There is also an opportunity for an individual pension account in stocks/funds, etc., which you can
start taking out from age 55 if you like.
Also, there is a pension fee that is optional after an agreement between individuals and
employers, or trade unions and employers (avtalspension/tjänstepension).
•
•
•
Sweden today:
•
A hybrid: on the one hand, a large public sector and high taxes, as well as a relatively
egalitarian distribution of wealth.
•
On the other hand, strong currents of NPM, free schools, private healthcare institutions,
and a competitive business sector.
•
Although growth has been relatively high since the late 1990’s, unemployment has never
returned to the low pre-90’s levels.
•
In the post-war decades and until 1990, unemployment hovered between 1 and (at most) 4
%. After the crisis in the early 90-s, it has tended to move between 5 and 10 %.
•
The distribution of wealth has become more unequal.
•
Enclaves of high unemployment and other problems have emerged in immigrant
neighborhoods.
•
On the whole, Sweden remains a successful society with a high standard of living but
arguably not as successful relative to other countries as it used to be. On the other hand,
some would argue that reforms introduced in the 1990’s were necessary, that the previous
system stifled growth, and that individual freedom has increased considerably.
Finally… …some deeper
questions:
• What is welfare?
•
•
To live well?
In a statistically measurable sense, and if so, what should we measure? Which are the best
indicators of “welfare”?
• Why should we have it?
•
•
•
•
Because it stabilizes a capitalist society?
Because it prevents social unrest?
Because it strengthens the economy (e.g. provides companies with a well-skilled and
healthy workforce)?
Because it is the right thing to do, e.g. because of a sense of solidarity, justice, etc?
• Which are its problems?
•
•
•
Do high taxes lower economic growth?
Do welfare systems stifle individual initiative?
Does a big public sector impact negatively on civil society?
A concluding comparison, just for
fun: Denmark/USA
• Taxes as % of GDP, 2009,
(OECD ranking): 48,2 (nr. 1)
• Taxes as % of GDP, 2009,
(OECD ranking): 24,0 (nr. 31)
• GDP/capita (2010, World
Bank, $): 55.778
• GDP/capita (2010, World
Bank, $): 47.084
• Current unemployment: 4,1 %
• Current unemployment: 9,1 %
• Ranking, happiness, World
Gallup Poll: nr. 1
• Ranking, happiness , World
Gallup Poll: nr. 14
Gender equality
Middle Ages…
• According to some sources, women were
relatively strong in old Scandinavian (”Viking”)
society.
• Birger Jarl (ca 1210-1266) founded Stockholm
and introduced the “kvinnofrid” (“female peace”)
law: women were protected against attacks, both
physical and verbal. Such attacks were punished
severely.
Early Swedish feminism
•
Pioneering feminists in Sweden were often from the upper classes and proponents of
“difference feminism”, i.e. they believed in women’s rights, but also believed that men
and women are fundamentally different.
•
Hedvig Charlotta Nordenflycht (1718-1763), poet and intellectual who argued that
women were the intellectual equals of men.
•
Fredrika Bremer (1801-1865), writer, fought to assure that unmarried women were
not legally subjected to male guardians. She was successful and in 1858 parliament
passed a law that unmarried women of 25 years of age or over could apply to
become legally responsible for themselves.
•
Ellen Key (1849-1926), teacher, writer, public intellectual. Inspired by Goethe, friend
and later enemy of August Strindberg. Supported the labor movement, women’s
rights progressive education, but also thought that men should provide for the family
while women should stay at home or focus on female professions (despite being
herself an author and lecturer earning her own income). Also famous for introducing a
new style of modern design.
Women’s right to vote, 18th and
19th centuries
•
Sweden had a parliamentary tradition since the middle ages; since the
15th century, it was built upon the four estates (nobles, priests, citydwellers, and peasants). But parliament was a council, while the king
was the ultimate ruler. After loosing its empire, Sweden became more
liberal in the early 18th century. Authoritarian monarchy was discredited
and a parliamentary system introduced. Widows were allowed to vote
between 1718 and 1771 (married and unmarried women were
subjected to a male guardian).
•
King Gustav III reintroduced authoritarian monarchy, but in the 19th
century parliamentarianism was gradually reintroduced. Unmarried
women who were not subject to a male guardian (i.e. over 25 years of
age, according to the law inspired by Fredrika Bremer) and widows
could vote in landsting and city councils, provided they had a relatively
high income (which was the general provision for all). In practice, this
led to very few women having the right to vote, although it was possible.
Women’s right to vote, the 20th
century
•
Since the right to vote was income-related and the economy grew rapidly in the late 19th
century, the share of the male population with a right to vote increased from 20 % in 1866
to 60 % in the early 20th century. This strengthened the liberals and social democrats in
parliament.
•
Interestingly, the introduction of a new, much longer compulsory military service in 1901
also gave increased strength to demands for universal suffrage. But women were not
drafted into the armed forces…
•
(Sweden abolished the compulsory military service in 2010. But was it unfair to only draft
men into the armed forces? How should one argue from a feminist perspective?)
•
In the early 20th century, with Fredrika Bremer as an ideal and source of inspiration, liberal
and social democratic women started advocating the right to vote for all women as well as
men, regardless of income. Their methods were peaceful and centered on speeches and
debates. In 1921, they succeeded with the support of liberal and social democratic male
parliamentarians, and universal suffrage was finally introduced.
World War II and after
•
Many men were drafted into the armed forces and hence there was a shortage of workers.
•
Increasing female participation in the workforce.
•
Feminist thinkers like Alva Myrdal (married to Gunnar Myrdal) wanted to assure that this
became a long-term trend. By suggesting new occupations for women, she got support
from Ernst Wigforss.
•
The social democrats expected a recession after the war, but instead there was an
economic boom.
•
Social democratic feminists like Alva Myrdal wanted greater female participation in the
workforce and greater participation by men in chores at home.
•
But the ideal of men as providers and women as housewives persisted and immigration of
workers from abroad was suggested as the prime solution for a shortage of labor after the
war. Nevertheless, new professions in the growing public sector, i.e. in social services and
the health care sector, were especially open to women.
•
Some of the ideas of feminists at the time survived, even though more far-reaching
practical policies towards gender equality did not materialize (yet).
The 1960’s…
• In the 1950’s, Sweden was still quite conservative and also proAmerican. However, a minister of equality was introduced in 1954.
• In the 1960’s, A wave of left-wing radicalism started, led by
intellectuals and writers like Jan Myrdal (incidentally the son of
Gunnar & Alva Myrdal…), with protests against the Vietnam War,
student protests against reforms in the university system and
generally against capitalism, US imperialism, etc.
• While not all of the left-wing radicals were particularly pro-gender
equality, there was an increased focus on women’s liberation.
• This also influenced Olof Palme, who introduced several reforms to
increase gender equality as a part of his general program of reforms
in the first half of the 1970’s.
Palme reforms with a focus on
gender equality
• Before 1971, married couples were taxed equally for their total
income together. This was abolished by Palme. This made it more
attractive for women to work and female participation in the
workforce increased.
• A massive expansion of schools and daycare centers, also creating
new jobs (for women) in the public sector.
• Increasing female representation in political organs.
• Free abortions (1975). Abortions had been legal since 1938, but
only under special conditions. Since 1975, it is up to the woman
herself until week 18 of the pregnancy.
The 1990’s
• The 1980’s is often seen as a reversal for feminism.
JämO was created in 1980, but after that, the focus on
women’s liberation decreased for a while.
• In the early 1990’s there was a new wave of feminism in
Sweden.
• Since then, feminism has become an integrated part of
government planning and official policy aims.
• This has led to a renewed debate in the media on
whether feminism/gender equality policies have gone
“too far” in Sweden or, perhaps, become unnecessary.
Finally…some deeper questions:
• What does gender equality entail:
• Equal rights?
• Equal opportunities (by extending/reformulation
rights)?
• Equal division of labor?
• Equal distribution of resources?
• Equal division of power (and if so, what does
“power” mean)?