1.  Introduction to politicsLars Niklasson  Education and trainingLars Niklasson  Governance & privatizationBo Persson  Legitimacy & efficiencyLars Niklasson  Drivers of changeElin Wihlborg  Seminar on the literature  Seminar on individual papers The Swedish Model, part 2

2.  1976-82-91-94: Challenges and decentralization  1995: Membership of the European Union  Late 90s: Cutbacks to save the welfare state  Too generous to work?  2006: Back to ”work for welfare” (Arbetslinjen)  = Reforms to save the welfare state?  Influence from 1997: The European Social Model  Whereto? A Social Investment State? 7. Introduction to the politics of the welfare state

3.  1. Social investments in skills and modern needs/risks (work/family life, change of careers etc.)  = an Economist’s perspective on welfare: utility rather than social rights, ”productive social policy”  = Collective responsibility  Alva and Gunnar Myrdal: families and women  (Wanted selective policies)  2. Keynes: the macro economy, more traditional/male  3. Neoliberals: rigidities, market distortions, gov’t failure  Three paradigms (table 1.1) SIWS as a hybrid A new type of welfare state? (Morel, Palier & Palme, intro)

4.  Critique:  Less support for passive unemployment with the focus on ”activation”  Less support to stay outside the labor market  Bad implementation of policies against exclusion in the Lisbon strategy  An instrumental view on women and children (as labor force)  Divergent views (Nordic vs Anglo-Liberal):  Esping-Andersen on positive effects of social rights, aim for equality, combination of investment and protection  Giddens on moral hazard and duties, beneficial inequalities, support as springboard, from passive to active measures A new type of welfare state, continued

5.  1. Keynesianism after WWII (the Depression)  From charity to right, taming capitalism, class compromise, embedded liberalism (Bretton Woods)  2. Neoliberalism after the 70s (Stagflation)  Monetarism (balanced budgets, low inflation, stable currency), flexibility, gov’t as problem, selective policies  OECD Jobs Study 1994: high unemployment in Europe, EMU to limit politics, social pacts/not cutbacks  3. Social investment since 90s (the Third Way)  OECD 1996, EU 1997, Esping-Andersen et al 2002. A balance. The welfare state can be positive for competitiveness. Structural (not cyclical) unemployment needs capacitating services Waves of transformation (Hemerijk 2012)

6.  Beyond neoliberalism: critics on the left and right  Investment (not spending) = future profits  Responsibility mix: market, family, community, state  Universal coverage  Fostering prevention, rights and duties  Governance through networks: communities (?)  (Sweden: Learning accounts, citizen choice?)  Neoliberalism failed: high spending & problems in Europe, experiments in Asia, revised ideas 1997 (World Bank) Social investment (Jenson 2012)

7.  Demographic transition: problem and opportunity  Ageing population effect in 2030-40  National variety, National Transfer Accounts  Transfers over the life cycle: independence, retirement  Life expectancy, fertility rates: dependency rates  Work longer, have more babies: welfare support  Pensions: savings or pay-as-you-go  Parental leave  Consequences for jobs: more services, less goods Ageing populations (Lindh 2012)

8.  More barriers to European social policy due to aftershocks of the crisis, especially public finance  Direct effects: unemployment, austerity  EU divergence  Globalisation winners and losers  Demography  Migration  The state remains big but changes its role (NPM)  An opportunity for a European Social Model? Post-crisis policy (Diamond & Liddle 2012)

9.  Social policies to support climate policy  Market-based climate policies: emissions trading  Income equality leads to better climate (?)  Public ethos, economic instruments regressive  Sectoral impact: less agriculture, energy-intensive industries, more transport  Need for industrial policy, employment policy, dialogue, public investments (-- a role for markets, banks?)  The new economics of sustainable development (Stern)  Long-term investments in public goods: education etc. Climate policy (Sommestad 2012)

10.  The Lisbon Strategy (2000): wide and with a goal:  ”The most competitive region in the world”  ”Europe 2020” (2010): narrower, with priorities  Smart, sustainable, inclusive growth (+targets)  Continuity with the focused Lisbon Strategy 2005-10  Still weak implementation (OMC), change of majority, SGP  European Employment Strategy: quality jobs? Flexicurity? Less competitiveness with less cohesion?  No understanding of the learning economy (or EMU)  A transnational welfare state needed = European identity From Lisbon to Europe 2020 (Lundvall & Lorenz 2012)

11.  A paradigm in search of a new economic model  Modernising ideas  Capacitating policies: education, family, employment  Weak implementation:  Increase in expenditure, not investments  Protection and promotion: the Nordics (NL, UK)  Activation = third way = ”too close to neoliberalism”  The analysis: disincentives, lack of flexibility  The solution: working poor. (Conservation?) Skills are needed. A new economic model (Morel, Palier & Palme, conclusion)

12.  With high skill jobs, more difficult to employ migrants  New national accounts? Investments vs consumption  Political triggers: competition for the female vote  Against neoliberalism (– a new coalition of socialists and conservatives? mercantilism, competitiveness)  Germany not a viable alternative (?)  Gradual change may lead to paradigmatic change A new economic model, contd.

13.  1. What are the differences between Giddens and Esping- Andersen on Social Investment policies?  2. What are the three waves reactions against?  3. What are the differences between investments and savings?  10. In what sense is demography an opportunity?  11. Is the crisis an opportunity for a European Social Model?  12. What is the link between social and climate policies?  13. What is missing in Europe 2020?  14. What kind of coalition(-s) would support a European Social Model based on the idea of social investments? Morel, Palier & Palme 2012: Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, policies and challenges

14.  Two parts:  Primary, secondary, tertiary education  Skills development and training for adults  Structures, actors, processes, achievements  Challenges  European comparisons (Morel, Palier & Palme 2012) 8. Case study: Education and training

15.  Pre-school, primary school 1-9, secondary 10-12  National curricula, framework legislation and control  Local and private implementation  A strong focus on results since 2006: more uniform  A debate on segregation, vocational programs Education policy

16.  Xx universities (PhD-granting)  Yy colleges (limited PhD-granting)  Several private, two independent  Also some vocational tertiary education (YH)  Student loans to study in Sweden and abroad  Quasi-market since 1993:  Formula funding, deregulation, quality control  Fees for non-EES students (except exchange)  What drives innovation in higher education?  Competition and/or top-down inititives? Higher education

17.  Active labor market policy, ALMP = training programs  A national policy: people need to move to the jobs  Formerly regional and corporatist, now centralized  Performance targets lead to creaming  Exclusion: difficult to help clients with many needs  Local collaboration or competition?  Training programs by local and regional gov’ts too  ”One door in”, joined-up government bottom-up:  Infotek = guidance, Lärcentrum = co-location Labor market policy: training

18.  The policies overlap in adult education  Are the systems integrated?  Do they promote equality (of opportunity/outcomes)?  Do they support individual development?  Do they support economic growth?  Next lecture on governance and privatization Consistent? Efficient?

19.  More integrated public services?  More adaptable services?  Not good at solving complex problems, or these problems are now more visible?  Fighting exclusion  Support for economic growth (better skills development? A strong business climate?)  Accountability? Good for the citizens?

20.  Compensatory policies: unemployment, old age  Investment policies: ALMP, family, education  Spending convergence over time  Spending in cash or in kind (services)  Expansion of old age insurance and family benefits  ALMP: more activation, less spending  Four clusters (low/high) Figure 4.3-4.6  Increased spending but less on education  Convergence on Scandinavia or the UK? OECD comparisons (Nikolai 2012)

21.  The European Employment Strategy, EES 1997  After EMU, to develop skills, part of the Lisbon Strategy  Synergies of economic, labor market and social policies  Targets the continental and Mediterranean countries  Soft policy, OMC: increased employment due to EES?  Policy frame: problem, goal, benchmarks, instruments  Contradicts the economic policy frame (EMU)  Flexi+curity, employability, a role for social partners  EES has become a reference point, but little change Employment policies (de la Porte & Jacobsson 2012)

22.  The Nordic countries: big fit  Less quality in activation, structural issues not reformed  The English-speaking countries: fit  UK: Domestically driven reforms, Ireland: ESF  The Continental countries: misfit  More activation, ”Modèle danois”, Hartz reforms  The Mediterranean countries: misfit  More flexibility, less security (opposite of social investment)  The East European countries: low spending  Activation and flexibility, weak social partners Employment policies, contd

23.  Female employment, gender equality, child care  Pioneers: France, Norway, Sweden  Path-shifters: Germany, Netherlands, UK  Slow-movers: Austria, Italy, Spain  Political forces: new ideas? Barriers?  Electoral strategies (Sweden and Norway)  The representation of women in politics  General conservatism in the slow-moving countries Work-family policies (Morgan 2012)

24.  Ambiguous concept. Four (six) types (table 7.1):  Investment in human capital? (or incentives to work?)  Pro-market orientation? (or temporary jobs?)  Spending profiles in six countries (figure 7.1)  General decline 1995-2005, except the UK  Reduction of ”job creation”, increase of ”employment assistance”, decline of ”training”  Spending levels: Nordic, Continental, UK  From education (60s), via occupation (70s) to re-entry (90s). Laggards become leaders: Denmark, UK. Active labor market policy (Bonoli 2012)

25.  Investment policies are related to knowledge-inten- sive services and discretionary learning employment  Problems: overeducation? Inhibiting business investment? Relevant adjustment of content?  But: markets aren’t perfect, education is undersupplied (?), a need to recruit internationally  Data: (1) 1972-99, (2) cross-sectional correlations  USA at top and bottom  Investments lead to employment and quality jobs More and better jobs? (Nelson & Stephens 2012)

26.  A need for organizational learning and networking  Discretionary learning = more autonomy than in ”lean production” (But: standardized processes!)  North vs south  High skill jobs less exposed to foreign competition  Flexicurity makes it easy for firms to upgrade and makes individuals less risk-averse  Vocational training and informal learning  Equality, openness and trust  Learning by doing and by interaction with customers etc.  Social investments on an international scale for migrants? The globalizing learning economy (Lundvall & Lorenz 2012)

27.  4. What spending patterns can we see over time?  5. Which groups of countries have increased the policies of activation?  6. What are the political drivers and barriers for and against equal rights for women?  7. How did the laggards become leaders in ALMP?  8. How can social investments lead to better jobs?  9. What are the pros and cons of flexicurity? Morel, Palier & Palme 2012: Towards a social investment welfare state?

28.  1. What is the difference between ”market by design” and ”market by interaction”?  2. In what sense did the regulation of the universities converge on a common model?  3. In what sense did Sweden and the UK move in opposite directions? Niklasson 1996: ”Quasi-markets in higher education – A comparative analysis”