3. 1 Sweden
At the end of the nineteenth century, liberals and the labour movement
questioned the traditional power structure of the Swedish state, i.e.
nobility, clergy, burghers, and farmers. They agitated to reform the
political system towards a more representative parliamentary
democracy. In addition, other social movements played an important
role in the struggle for civil rights.
In modern Swedish history, a special place is assigned to the popular
movements in shaping and influencing values and policies. According
to Gunnar Heckscher (1951: 77), the fundamental dividing line between
popular movements and other types of (interest) organisations is their
basis of recruitment: a popular movement must comprise a large
number of individuals, have a democratic structure and a certain degree
of equality between its members (Ibid. 79). Furthermore, popular
movements are characterised by a "spiritual" dimension. Both interest
and idealistic organisations are able to create conventions that
determine the individual member's behaviour, but these conventions are
different when made with a claim to moral authority compared with
opinions that are exclusively based on a specific economic interest
(Ibid. 84).
The most important popular movements at the beginning of the
twentieth century were the free churches, the temperance movements,
and the labour movement (Lundström and Wijkström 1997: 60). The
free church movement (meaning independent from the Lutheran State
Church
6 was primarily
a rural phenomenon. The modern temperance
movement became the largest single popular movement. These two
movements were inspired in particular by models in the US. The third
popular movement was the labour movement.
At the end of the nineteenth century, left-wing liberals became
concerned with the social consequences of industrialisation. They were
urban reformers, often with an affinity for temperance movements that
stressed individual responsibility and help-to-self-help (Ibid. 88). They
belonged to the liberal faction that advocated larger responsibility for
the state and local government in social reforms. Many of its members
became high-ranking officials in the state bureaucracy and played a
crucial part in forming policies in areas such as poor relief and child
welfare (Lundström and Wijkström 1997: 67).
Even if the idea of social reforms and social policy stems from the
liberal movement (Olsson 1993), its character and extension are very
much associated with the labour movement and especially the Social
Democratic Party. Since the elections of 1915, the Social Democratic
Party has been the largest party in the Lower House and the largest
single political force in Swedish society. The social democrats have
governed the country alone or in coalitions from 1932 until today.7
The People's Home
In 1928, the social democratic leader Per Albin Hansson launched the
concept of the "People's Home". The ideal of the People's Home
comprised not only the creation of a welfare state that aimed for a
redistribution of income among the population by tax policies or by
making education, health service and social security accessible to all. A
spirit of Gemeinschaft, symbolising solidarity, helpfulness, cordiality,
consideration, compassion, and kindness among people was also part of
the concept (Inghe 1968). It was based on a patriarchal frame of mind
in which the benevolent state should take care of everyone (Hirdman
1989: 90). The project of creating the People's Home was interrupted
by the Second World War but was to continue with renewed energy
after the war, resulting in the so-called Swedish welfare state model, a
model characterised by a universalised social policy; i.e. in principle
covering all citizens.
Even if the country stayed neutral in the war, a state of crisis was
proclaimed. A national coalition government was installed and
administration became more centralised. The latter development
strengthened a trend towards centralisation had already been going on
due to the economic crisis since the 1930s (Hadenius, Wieslander,
Molin 1967: 174). Furthermore, the mobilisation of public resources
(by taxation and newly established central administrative bodies) during
the war afforded the possibility of redirecting public expenditure
towards non-military peacetime purposes (Olsson 1993: 115).
The Second World War also had other consequences. Although not
directly experienced by the Swedish people, the horrors of the war and
fascism meant a blow to confidence in the progress of society. The war
had demonstrated that democracy was not gained once and for all, but
was to be created, planned, and mediated to the people. Democracy was
the only rational way to escape a destructive development, and people
had to be educated to become democrats (Hirdman 1989). The
experience of the planned economy during the war was a stimulus for
the social democrats to encompass a general "planning optimism" even
in peacetime.
Public services
From the description above some basic characteristics of the Swedish
state can be discerned concerning the structure of health and social
services, namely the strong involvement of central and local
governments. The strong involvement of the central and local
governments in these fields can be traced back to 1847. Responsibility
for poor relief was delegated to municipalities by the Poor Law, and
every municipality was to establish a poor relief council (Qvarsell
1993: 221). Until the Second World War, municipal councils and
NGOs worked together in many fields of poor relief. This relation
would change drastically in the post-war period when the role of NGOs
was played down. Roger Qvarsell (1993: 236) has identified two main
reasons for this development. The increased interest of the Social
Democratic Party in social policy since the 1920s (after the political
change from revolution to reforms) and the emergence of strong
organisations representing occupational groups within public health and
social services.
The political dominance of the social democrats with their preference
for a planned society would have a radical impact on the social welfare
that had been provided by NGOs. The care of the elderly, poor relief
and childcare eventually became largely a public service, tax-financed,
and regulated by the central government in the period 19401960. The
justification for the take-overs was that such important provisions
should be guaranteed by the state. Other advantages were that the
quality of these services could be better controlled, standardised,
professionalised, and equality between services promoted (Lundström
and Wijkström 1997: 70).
The 1960s and early 1970s are described by Olsson (1993: 116) as a
period of expansion of public service and of decentralisation of central
government to regional and municipal governments. This means that
almost all health care is both tax-financed and operated by public
organisations.8 With the state take-over of
activities formerly run by
NGOs, the totality of social service had become the responsibility of
municipalities, regulated by law and supervised by state authorities.
Developments in Sweden as depicted above, endorse the picture of
the central state as a good father that takes care of society (samhället).
6 In 1952, freedom of religion was extended when permission from the King was
no
longer needed for the establishment of churches outside the State church.
7 With three interruptions, 19401945 when a national coalition government was
installed, and 19761982 and 19911994 when a non-socialist government was in
office.
8 An exception to this development of decentralisation was the centralising of
the
police, the courts, and executive authority to the central state level in 1965
(Gustafsson 1996: 37).