Ⅰ.Introduction The geographical area of the five Nordic countries, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, constitutes almost one-third of the total area of western Europe, but, with ca 25 million inhabitants, only 5% of its population. The Nordic countries have developed many institutions and cultural patterns of their own, and have in recent decades attracted particular attention world-wide for the kind of welfare state they have developed since the Second World War［12］.
A primary function of welfare states is to protect citizens against social risks. Obviously, this protection varies in scope and generosity over time and according to political constellations and national institutional traditions. Nonetheless, welfare states may be clustered in distinct types based on their similar institutional designs. The Nordic countries make up one such cluster in most academic research on welfare state typologies, subsumed under the label the ″Nordic welfare model.″
This model is characterized by five essential features： (1)social policy is comprehensive in terms of needs covered; (2)there is high legitimacy for public welfare provision; (3)social rights are of a universal nature, based on residence; (4)redistribution makes for relatively equal income distributions;and (5)work orientation is strong.
During the last hundred years an increasing number of risks such as sickness, unemployment, disabilities, old age, etc., have been recognized as matters of public responsibility and matters of individual rights. Some social risks though, such as loss or lack of income caused by diverse reasons, have never been granted this recognition as a right in the same sense-they are subsumed under residual social assistance acts that provide benefits only after a means-test, benefits which are far less generous than what are offered through the general social security system for the risks mentioned above.
The Nordic welfare states not only form a distinct type of welfare states in terms of their institutional characteristics, but also frequently appear to serve as a positive model for reforms and developments in other countries. The reason seems to be that this model put more emphasis on certain political values and welfare principles that are highly regarded by many, such as generally high level of well-being, social equality, and social peace, and have clearly, in comparison with most other countries of the world, been quite successful in these respects. A high degree of egalitarian outcomes such as limited poverty, income equality, and social stability are achieved through the inclusiveness of social policies and the universal allocation of public welfare benefits. Studies show that the design of the welfare policy institutions and the outcome of policies enjoy high legitimacy in the population, i.e., both in terms of procedural legitimacy (how decisions are made) and outcome legitimacy (results of decisions and implementation). Comparative research has shown relatively high citizen trust in government and political institutions and also high levels of trust between citizens in the Nordic countries. Thus, both ?″input″ and ″output″ legitimacy appear to be high and can be considered vital to the stability of the Nordic democratic systems.
Although we claim that a notion of a distinct Nordic welfare model can be argued for, we should also be aware that it is not static. In fact, a number of researchers have started to question its uniqueness; ?e.g., Greve states that ″The Nordic welfare state has now been changed in such a way that it raises the question whether a distinct Nordic model is still in play″［3］111; Haynes questions whether Scandinavian countries are ″different″： ″Recent research has cast some doubt on the consistency of models that isolate Scandinavian countries as different to other nations in terms of egalitarian welfare states″［4］114; and Kvist and Greve sweepingly say that ″The Nordic welfare model is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Using Denmark we show how a universal welfare state model is gradually being transformed into an emergent multi-tiered welfare state″［5］146.
As other welfare states, advanced as well as emerging, the Nordic welfare states are phased with a number of more or less common challenges, such as ageing of the populations, (im)migration, internationalization or globalization of the economy, and-during the last three ?years-financial and debt crisis. It can be argued that the Nordic welfare states have so far weathered these challenges better than most Western countries, and research has also shown that welfare states in rich democracies ″have not converged around an Anglo-liberal model of modest benefits, extensive means-testing, and significant private insurance and services; welfare state trajectories in developing political economies also exhibit substantial variety″［6］318. Yet, welfare states, including the Nordic ones, have been subject to ?market-oriented reforms in the field of social insurance and service provision, and to new policy initiatives for labour market activation, ?″flexicurity″(a concept said to be invented in Denmark), and variants of ?″workfare.″ We shall not analyze the challenges to Nordic welfare states or to what extent these are conditioned mostly by domestic (especially demographic) factors or external (European or global) factors, but limit ourselves to discuss whether the highly praised and characteristic principle of universalism is currently under threat in Nordic welfare states. We shall primarily refer to Norwegian examples of reforms or reform efforts.
Ⅱ.Research Question： Is the Principle of Universalism Threatened?
All welfare states are expressions of norms, values, and principles, which are more or less explicitly articulated, and which appear more or less ambiguous, mixed and even contradictory. Yet, three welfare principles which are less complicated to identify have been matters of discussions since the first development of social security and welfare policies in Europe from the end of the 19th century. They have come to be attributed to three central welfare state models, described by Titmuss as? institutional, achievement-oriented,? and ?residual?, based on the way citizens gain entitlements to state social security and thus on the way in which the state distribute or allocate welfare benefits［7］. The dividing lines between them are determined by membership in the welfare state. Fundamentally, the question is whether all members of society are beneficiaries, or whether welfare provisions only comprise the poor, or whether they only cover those who have made a contribution to society in the form of paying income taxes and contributions to social security. The normative principles expressed in these three types of allocation of benefits may be described as ?universalism, targeting?, and? reciprocity?, respectively. Even if they exist next to each other within the same welfare state, they are competing principles of allocation that, in their own way, based on the relative emphasis on each of them, has contributed to the design of welfare states. Accordingly, these principles throw light on the normative logic in various states, and on values and interests that are given priority.
No welfare state has implemented any of these principles in a pure form. Nevertheless, many researchers seem to agree on the characterization of the Nordic welfare states as first and foremost universalistic. Almost 70 years after the implementation of the first universal benefit in Norway, the ?child allowance scheme in? 1946, the ideas of reciprocity and targeting increasingly seem to have received a far more essential position in the discussion and implementation of social policy reforms, not only in Norway, but all over the Western world. After a brief review of the three key principles, we shall give an account of ?recent social policy reforms,? primarily in Norway, and thereafter throw light on the ?arguments? that once were used to justify universalism. These will be compared with today’s arguments for implementing means-testing and achievement-oriented social policies.
Ⅲ.Welfare Principles
1.Universalism
The principle of universalism ideally distributes welfare benefits to all members of a society; they are all, as a matter of right, beneficiaries of the same benefits and services, rich as well as poor and no matter how they live their lives. The term ″all members″ is vague, though, in the sense that it refers both to ″all citizens″ as well as to ″all residents.″ In the Nordic countries, benefits and services are often described as ″citizenship-based,″ but are in fact based on ?residence?. Residence is obviously more comprehensive than citizenship, and also the most generous to immigrants, guest-workers, etcTo qualify for citizenship a person must have resided in Norway for a total of seven years during the last ten years. A ?″resident″ is in Norway a person who has resided in the country 12 months or more..
The principle of universalism is, however, restricted in all known welfare states. Firstly, benefits and services are? categorical ?and related to certain politically defined need situations, like old age, sickness, unemployment, etc. Secondly, most benefits are related to ?work-achievements?.
Child allowances, old age and disability basic pensions, and health care are the most universal schemes in the Nordic countries. Many other countries have universal schemes within one or several of these policy areas. These are examples of benefits that are distributed equally to all members of the welfare state that belongs to a certain group of the population. Until 2004, everyone in Norway was entitled to ?funeral support,?- a more universal scheme than this can hardly be imagined.
Other income-securing schemes are less universal. For instance unemployment benefits are not distributed to every unemployed person, but only to those who have been gainfully employed, and who, as of recent years, actively seek jobs and can document that activity. Others can apply for means-tested social assistance. With increasing and high levels of employment one might say that income-related unemployment benefits become more universal in the sense that the large majority of the working-age population will be covered.
Clearly, the idea of universalism is closely related to ?egalitarianism?［1］. Egalitarian doctrines tend to express the idea that all human persons are equal in worth or moral status. People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect［8］. There are of course several types of equality, or ways in which people might be treated equally and enjoy equal opportunities. In modern democratic societies, however, the term ″egalitarian″ is generally used to refer to a position that favors a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons.
In terms of income security, the ideal-typical universal allocation is an unconditional,? flat-rate ″?basic income?″ unconditionally paid to every member of society-a benefit which no country has yet introduced. Although no country has yet implemented a fully developed basic income grant, Alaska has established ?The Alaska Permanent Fund Program? (1982) Website： http：//www.pfd.state.ak.us/.which on annual basis distributes a share of investment earnings from the oil industry, to every Alaskan residentThe dividend is paid to every resident who indicates an intention to remain in the state, regardless of age. In 2010, the Dividend was $ 1 281..In recent years there has been a growing public debate on the desirability and feasibility of such a ″?citizen’s income?″ or ″?solidarity grant?″ in countries like South Africa, Namibia and Brazil as a benefit without a means test more readily will reach the poorest population of all ages.
2.Reciprocity
The principle of reciprocity is poles apart from the principle of universalism and is based on the normative expectation of ″?mutuality?.″ Reciprocity signifies a relationship of exchange with the necessary moral element of duty, the duty to repayment. The principle is said to capture a deep intuition of distributive justice： In order to receive something, you have to give. Or as some writers have put it in today’s debates on social policy： ?It is unfair for able-bodied to live off the labour of others?［910］.
Reciprocity is the normative basis for ?the achievement-related principle? of social insurance, which means that you receive in proportion to what you have paid in ［11］32. It was first implemented in Germany, by Bismarck in the Old Age and Disability Pension program in 1889. And still continental welfare systems mainly consist of insurance schemes. This principle of distribution was introduced in the universal Nordic model in the late 1950s and in the 1960s (e.g., in the old age pension schemes in Sweden, Finland, and Norway) and has in recent years received increasingly more attention in other schemes, and also in the ?so-called residual, Anglo-American welfare model. In fact, the Anglo-American welfare states have contributed to this development internationally through their ″?welfare-for-work?″ and ″?workfare?″ programmes. But also in the Nordic welfare states the principle of strict reciprocity has gained a more prominent position through various so-called welfare contracts that oblige beneficiaries to contribute with something in return-basically work. We shall return to this below.
3.Targeting
Targeting policies, which imply allocation of benefits primarily based on means testing of one sort or other, aim at transferring benefits to those most in need and have gained a growing influence also outside the residual welfare states where they have been more prevalent. Although these policies are of various kinds, the term is usually taken to mean ?means testing,? i.e., a testing of the individuals’ ability to pay for their living, a testing of economic needs, in contrast to ?non-economic needs［12］19. Another targeting policy involves more individualised evaluations of ?need-situations, often called tailoringIt is not always clear what is meant by the concept of ″targeting.″ In the World Bank report ?Targeting of Transfers in Developing Countries? (D.Coady,M.Grosh & J.Hoddinott,?Targeting of Transfers in Developing Countries：Review of Lessons and Experience,?Washington,D.C.：The World Bank,2004), the term ″categorical targeting″ is used on benefits that the research literature generally labels as ″categorical universal″ benefits.. And a third one is the ?targeting of groups with special needs.? Current discussions on poverty and social inclusion have in particular actualized targeting policies-all around the world［13］134, including the Nordic countries. Instead of choosing or maintaining universal benefit schemes that include everyone, governments implement selective programmes that are adapted to each applicant, especially the long-term unemployed, immigrants, and youth. Targeting is assumed to increase the accuracy in social policy and thus the effectiveness of it.
Ⅳ.Today’s Challenges
The universal character of the Nordic welfare states is a typical construct of the early post-Second World War decades. It can be argued that universalism has been conducive to equality and security. And if the values of relatively egalitarian income distributions, low poverty rates, high levels of employment, political stability and steady economic growth or development are set high on the political agenda, the Nordic welfare states have been successful, comparatively speaking. Nevertheless the question has been raised whether comprehensive welfare states have evolved at the price of a weaker economic development than could otherwise have been expected? Are these welfare states-and the principles they build on-at the present time seriously challenged?
European welfare states have over the last 20-25 years to a greater or lesser degree entered a phase of restructuring. Major challenges are said to be population ageing and globalization, with increased immigration and economic competition. These processes are perceived to make the labour force shrink dramatically in coming years and to threaten the welfare state institutions. Nordic countries are also affected by these challenges and the discourses associated with them. The ideology of the welfare state is however resilient and all the five characteristics mentioned earlier are still relevant as a description of these states. The questions still remain though, whether the Nordic welfare states-and the principles they build on-are about to change? Can we observe a shift in emphasis on the various principles, empirically and ideologically? Let us present some recent, important reforms, and then briefly look at the welfare policy debates and discourses before we reach a tentative conclusion which can also serve as a basis for further research. We shall, as indicated, primarily refer to the Norwegian case.
Ⅴ.Recent Social Policy Reforms
In the beginning of the 1990s, unemployment problems were high on the agenda in Western social policy making, even in countries with high employment rates, such as Norway. Accordingly, several Western countries introduced social policy reforms that emphasized ?active measures? rather than so-called passive benefits, and citizens’ ?obligations? rather than rights. Thus, during the 1990s, similar ?work-oriented policies in the form of ″?welfare-to-work?″ and ?″?workfare?″ programmes were implemented in welfare states with quite different institutional traditions.
In Norway this so-called ″?renewed work approach?″ was introduced in a White Paper in 1991. In the most recent White Paper on welfare in Norway from 2006, this approach pervades the whole document. The ″?renewed work approach?″ is also the main reason behind a comprehensive welfare administration reform that was implemented in 2006, whose aim is to strengthen the bond between ?employment and social policies? in order to strengthen the battle against ?poverty and social exclusion.? The ″work first″ approach is perceived by the government as a main mechanism for reducing poverty and for social inclusion. Accordingly, the new Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV in Norwegian) united three former huge administrations： ?The national insurance, the national employment service?, and ?the municipal social welfare administration.? The reform was based on three ideas：(1)to get more people to work and in activity and fewer on ″passive″ benefits,(2)to establish a user-friendly system, and (3) to construct an efficient employment and welfare administration.
One of the main instruments in the governmental fight against poverty and social exclusion, was the? so-called ?Qualification Programme? with a related qualification benefit for a ?targeted group? of ??long-termed unemployed? and ?long-term recipients of social assistance?［14］16.
In order to concretize mutual expectations, demands and obligations between the welfare administration, and the recipients, the White Paper applies the concept of a ″?welfare contract?″ throughout the paper. It is not used in a legal sense but as a pedagogical tool in order to underline the connection that exists between ?individual rights and duties?［14］517. It is used as a common and ?systematic principle? in order to concretize ?mutual expectations, demands and obligations? between the welfare administration and the recipients［15］. Thus, the sharp linking of duties to social rights expressed in the White Paper primarily articulates a closer connection between the ?right to welfare benefits? and the? duty to work.?
This contractual linking of rights to duties implies that ?violation of the duty? to work or activity may be ?financially sanctioned.? Those who drop out from the Qualification Programme may get their qualification benefit reduced to pure Emergency help, which is a small amount of cash for food (NOK 67 per day).
Active labour market policy (ALMP) and the emphasis on work has been a cornerstone of Nordic welfare policy since the Second World War. What is striking with the ″new work approach″ is particularly the new ?contractual thinking? it is based on, which must be said to imply a normative change in Norwegian social policy.
All in all, the Norwegian social insurance benefits have increasingly been tied to requirements of activation and work; e.g., the recent (2011) old age pension reform in Norway establishes a much stronger link between contributions over one’s entire period as gainfully employed and pension benefits. The new obligations in the field of labour market policy and unemployment benefits are primarily targeted at the poorest, most vulnerable groups in society that in addition receive benefits on the basis of discretionary assessments of their needs. Both targeting and discretion are far from the principle of universalism.
This example from a core area of Norwegian social policy-policies against poverty and social exclusion-illustrates the challenges that the moral logic of the welfare state is exposed to. The principle of universalism is threatened both by the principles of targeting and the principle of reciprocity, or by the residual and achievement-oriented welfare state principles.
At last in this section we will shortly point at another policy area in Norway that constantly has been under attack for the last 15-20 years. This is the universal Child Allowance that is the most universal of cash benefit schemes, as it is independent of any work record or income.
The arguments against universal child allowances are basically that such benefits are too low to reduce poverty and improve living conditions of young families, and that many affluent families ″who do not need financial support″ for their children receive these benefits. The benefits should therefore be targeted at those who need them most. However, child benefits were never meant to eliminate or reduce poverty, but to equalize the differences between families with and without children. It is primarily a contribution from society to those who take on a responsibility for bringing up the new generation. Nevertheless, the criticism that universal schemes are too costly has been opposed by several ?counter-arguments.
Ⅵ.Main Justifications for Universalism
It is instructive to study the arguments that once were used in favour of universal programmes and compare them with current arguments against universal schemes. When the first real universal scheme, the Child Allowance Scheme, was introduced in 1946, and the old age pension scheme was reformed from a means-tested to a universal one in 1957, the main arguments were ?dignity, economic efficiency? and ?community building.? The two last arguments about efficiency and community building, understood as ?social inclusion,? are often heard today, although they have changed side in the argumentative ?battle-now they are supporting targeting and social insurance-thinking. The central normative argument concerning human dignity receives currently less attention.
Today the language of ?contracts? and the closely related concept of ?incentives? pervade a whole string of policy discourses. While a key manifestation of the use of welfare contracts is the slogan ″?no rights without responsibilities?,″ a key manifestation of today’s incentive thinking is the famous slogan ″?make work pay?″-the transition from benefit to work must pay economically. This implies, according to the Norwegian White Paper［14］, that the compensation level of most temporary benefits should be substantially lower than previously earned income. This will give the clients incentives to evade the ?″?poverty trap?″ and enter the workforce, if this is a possible choice, and thus the goals of ?efficiency? and ?social inclusion? will be supported. This is because social inclusion currently is perceived as labour-market participation. In the building of the universal welfare state it was rather ?equal political and social rights? that were perceived to be the basis for ?social inclusion.?
The ?economic calculation? is, however, more complicated than often portrayed in today’s discourse. This can be illustrated by referring to the arguments from the 1940s and 1950s. When for instance universal old-age pensions were discussed, and implemented, it was argued that to make pensions universal would save huge amounts of administrative costs that were used to control and check up on all information on individual (or household) income and means. This ?″?game of control?″ is always put into action when groups are separated in members and ?non-members, worthy and unworthy. Furthermore, while means-testing ?penalizes the will to work and save,? universal basic pensions avoid these effects. This is supported by researchers today who stress that the prospects of losing welfare benefits will prevent the clients with least resources to enter a risky labour market.
Another question that is important to reflect on is whether means-testing and need-targeting will be effective for poverty reduction in the longer term. A welfare state that only supports the poor will presumably not be politically sustainable. Since the welfare budget is not settled once and for all, but rather decided through elections and annual parliamentary budget decisions, it is not likely that those who are not included in the system-the well-off-are prepared to support it very generously. And since the benefit recipients are relatively weak, politically, socially, and economically speaking, they are hardly capable of successfully ?defending the quality of the programs?. A means-testing system for the poor may therefore end up as a poor system. This may be illustrated by a comparison between the residual welfare states and the universal ones： poverty rates are far higher in the first ones. Another important consideration is that a system of support that requires a person to be identified as poor will have some effects on the self-respect among the beneficiaries and for the respect from others ［13］36. These are aspects of ?societal costs? of social policy or welfare schemes which cannot so easily be quantified in budget terms, and are therefore normally excluded from the calculations of those preparing annual state budgets in the ministries of finance. The normative logic of a welfare state must be expected to have an indirect effect on the productivity of the economy, but it is far from given, as some seem to think, that a move away from the principle of universalism will save public expenditure or generally favour a more productive population. The social, political, and economic cost of social divisions and inequality that tend to go with welfare states relying extensively on means testing and targeting can easily outweigh the (economic) cost of universal and more egalitarian policies.
Ⅶ.Are Welfare Principles on the Move?
There are still strong universalistic elements in the Nordic welfare states in the sense that all residents are guaranteed an old age pension, health care, and education. Also, we shall not argue that the Norwegian or Nordic welfare state(s) exclusively must consist of universal social security schemes, such as is currently the case of child allowances or, as is discussed in some countries, in the form of a basic income, that is, a system with flat-rate benefits paid to everyone. A welfare state cannot only secure basic security for all, but should also compensate for social and natural inequalities; welfare states should probably include both universal and selective schemes, for people with special needs, and in some areas also allow the principle of reciprocity. Nevertheless, a change in social policies from universal social rights to targeting, contracts, duties, and incentives in the policy area we have highlighted, has important political and social implications, and indicates a move away from universalism as an important normative principle and as a basis for egalitarian policies and outcomes.
In particular the new contractualism with its duties and sanctions represents a clear retreat from a main idea of welfare states, that no citizen shall be denied basic goods needed to live a decent life. Although the adequate level of these goods, like health, education, pensions, income, and security, has been a controversial issue, this discussion has become overshadowed by the contract-based discussion of ?″what should count as an adequate reason to deny citizens such a good, at whatever level it is provided″［16］274. The central issue in current welfare debates has become ″what obligations society may impose on citizens as a condition of their receiving basic opportunity goods″［16］274. The new contractualism may thus be interpreted as representing a shift in the basic aims of welfare policy. The aim of protecting citizens against social risks may seem to be less of a central issue than the aim of changing people’s behaviour in a way that can make the individuals help themselves. Social rights have been weakened by linking them to certain ?behavioural conditions.?
（A first version of this paper was presented at the Sino-Nordic Welfare Seminar at the Nordic Centre, Fudan University, Shanghai, 9-11 October 2011.）
Bibliography
［1］ N.Kildal & S. Kuhnle,″The Nordic Welfare Model and the Idea of Universalism,″ in N.Kildal & S. Kuhnle(eds.),?Normative Foundations of the Welfare State: The Nordic Experience?,London: Routledge,2005,pp.1333.
［2］M.Alestalo,S.Hort & S.Kuhnle,″The Nordic Model: Conditions, Origins, Outcomes, Lessons,″https://www.省略/fileadmin/images/Downloads/working_papers/41.pdf,20110915.
［3］B.Greve,″Editorial Introduction:The Nordic Welfare States-Revisited,″?Social Policy & Administration?,Vol.45,No.2(2011),pp.111113.
［4］P.Haynes,″Are Scandinavian Countries Different? A Comparison of Relative Incomes for Older People in OECD Nations,″?Social Policy & Administration?,Vol.45,No.2(2011),pp.114130.
［5］J.Kvist & B.Greve,″Has the Nordic Welfare Model been Transformed?″?Social Policy & Administration?,Vol.45,No.2(2011),pp.146160.
［6］D.Swank,″Globalization,″ in F.G.Castles,S.Leibfried & J.Lewis,et al(eds,)?The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State?,Oxford: Oxford University Press,2010,pp.318330.
［7］R.M.Titmuss,?Social Policy,?London:Allen & Unwin Ltd.,1974.
［8］R.Dworkin,?Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality?,Cambridge:Harvard University Press,2000.
［9］J.Elster,″Comment on van der Veen and Van Parijs,″?Theory and Society?,Vol.15(1986),pp.709722.
［10］S.White, ″′Rights and Responsibilities′: A Social Democratic Perspective,″ in A.Gamble & T.Wright(eds.),?The New Social Democracy?,Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,1999,pp.166179.
［11］G.Esping-Andersen,?Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies?,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1999.
［12］B.Rothstein,?Just Institutions Matter?,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998.
［13］A.Sen,?Development as Freedom?, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1999.
［14］?St.meld. nr.9 (20062007) ：Arbeid, Velferd og Inkludering?,https://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ad/dok/regpubl/stmeld/20062007/stmeld-nr-9-2006-2007-.html?id=432894,20110110. ［?Norwegian White Paper(20062007):Work, Welfare and Inclusion?,https://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ad/dok/regpubl/stmeld/20062007/stmeld-nr-9-2006-2007-.html?id=432894,20110110.］
［15］E.Nilssen & N.Kildal,″New Contractualism in Social Policy and the Norwegian Fight against Poverty and Social Exclusion,″?Ethics and Social Welfare?,Vol.3,No.3(2009), pp.303321.
［16］A.Gutmann & D.Thompson,?Democracy and Disagreement,?Cambridge,MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1996.