Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 114–123 DOI: 10.17645/si.v8i1.2511 Article Universalism in Welfare Policy: The Swedish Case beyond 1990 Paula Blomqvist * and Joakim Palme Department of Government, Uppsala University, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden; E-Mails: [email protected] (P.B.), [email protected] (J.P.) * Corresponding author Submitted: 30 September 2019 | Accepted: 2 January 2020 | Published: 18 March 2020 Abstract Despite its broad usage, universalism as a concept is not always clearly defined. In this article, a multidimensional definition of universalism in social policy is developed, based on four policy characteristics: inclusion, financing, provision, and the adequacy of benefits. In the empirical part of the article, the feasibility of this definition is tested by an analysis of recent changes in the Swedish welfare state, which is typically described as universal but has undergone substantive reforms since 1990. Four social policy areas are examined: pensions, social insurance, health care, and family policy. The results indicate that Swedish welfare policies retain their universalistic character in some dimensions but have become less universalistic in others. This demonstrates that a multidimensional approach is best suited to capture in full the nature and implications of welfare state reform. Keywords family policy; health care; pensions; social insurance; social protection; Sweden; universalist welfare; welfare state reform Issue This article is part of the issue “‘Universalism’ or ‘Universalisms’ in Social Policies?” edited by Monica Budowski (University of Fribourg, Switzerland) and Daniel Künzler (University of Fribourg, Switzerland). © 2020 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu- tion 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction 2014). In addition, interpretations of universality have often differed between policy sectors. In this article it Universalism has long been a central concept in social is argued that it is fruitful to formulate criteria for uni- policy research, both as a goal and a characterization versal social policies that speak to both of the two main of policy instruments. It is typically used to describe types of social benefits: cash-benefits and benefits in- social policies that include the whole population in a kind, i.e., social insurance and assimilated schemes, on country, rather than just a targeted group, or which cre- the one hand, and social services, on the other hand. ate separate programs for different groups. Universalism Drawing on previous research on the nature of universal- has been seen as a value both because it implies a ism in social insurance as well as social services, a com- higher level of social equity than selective or stratify- prehensive definition of universalism is presented that ing policies and because it has been shown to create combines four analytical dimensions: inclusion, financ- a broader basis of popular support for public welfare ing, provision, and benefits. According to this definition, programs. Controversies regarding universalism typically a fully universalist social program should (1) formally in- concern questions about distribution of benefits, and clude all citizens on the same conditions, (2) be financed also the functioning and sustainability of welfare states through public means only, (3) be managed by one actor (Beland, Marchildon, & Prince, 2019; Kildal & Kuhnle, only so that benefits are uniform, and (4) offer social ben- 2005; Thompson & Hoggett, 1996). Not infrequently, efits that are generous and of high quality, thereby mak- such discussions are confused by the ambiguity and fuzzi- ing them relevant to all groups in society, including the ness of the concept of universalism itself, which leaves better-off. While this definition is inspired by the Nordic it open to differing interpretations (Anttonen & Sipilä, experience with its extensive, publicly funded and admin- Social Inclusion, 2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 114–123 114 istrated welfare systems, universalism should be under- as health, education, and social care (Bode, 2006; Gilbert, stood as an ideal type concept, rather than an empirical 2002; Kamerman & Kahn, 2014). The new welfare mix generalization. Using the construction of ideal type, that of public and private elements that has developed as is, a pure ideal, makes it possible to describe and analyse a result often challenges standard conceptions of what the concept in more depth while at the same time ac- constitutes “public” or “universal” social programs and knowledging that full universalism is virtually impossible makes it hard to assess the implications for values such as to obtain even if embraced as a policy goal. social equity (Klenk & Pavolini, 2015; le Grand & Bartlett, The empirical part of the article treats the case of 1993). A broader conceptualization of universality, which Sweden, which has often been pointed to as a prime also includes characteristics such as service delivery and example of a universalistic welfare state, but where the administration of social programs, makes it possi- reforms and retrenchment in the last decades have ble to address the implications of such reforms as well. led to questioning whether this characteristic prevails Another problem with most previous definitions of uni- (Berg, 2004; Clayton & Pontusson, 1998; Lindbom, 2001). versalism is that they refer either to social protection Drawing on a multidimensional definition of universal- systems (Korpi & Palme, 1998), or to specific policy sec- ism, changes in the Swedish welfare state after 1990 are tors in welfare services, such as health care or elder care assessed in order to answer the question of whether, or (see, for instance, Carey, Crammond, & de Leeuw, 2015; to what extent, the system can still be described as uni- Szebehely & Meagher, 2018). In the following, insights versalistic. Four policy areas are examined: pensions, so- from prior research on universalism in both social in- cial insurance, family policy, and health care. The find- surance and social services are drawn upon in order to ings in the article show that the changes that have taken develop a fuller and more comprehensive definition of place have weakened the universalist character of the the concept. system, particularly with regard to the fashion in which With regard to social insurance programs, three fun- the benefits are provided and the adequacy of the ben- damental questions can be posed in order to determine efits. The analysis of the Swedish case demonstrates the their character and degree of universalism (cf. Korpi & usefulness of a comprehensive, multidimensional defini- Palme, 1998). First, are programs open to all or means- tion of universalism as this provides for more nuanced tested? Second, are programs segmented, with different discussion of the effects of social reforms and their impli- insurance providers, or administered within the same cations for social equity. (public) system for all? Third, are benefits paid at a flat rate or earnings-related? The third question may seem 2. The concept of Universalism surprising, not least because many countries combine basic flat-rate and earnings-related provisions in, for in- Universalism has been broadly understood as the prin- stance, their pension system. Furthermore, as noted ciple through which social protection and services are above, early definitions of universalism tended to de- offered to all citizens as a matter of social right, rather scribe benefits as flat rate, or uniform. Others have ar- than through means-testing or systems that are seg- gued, however, that systems which only provide basic mented by, for example, occupation or income levels insurance benefits in practice invite private insurance (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Titmuss, 1976). This definition to provide complementing income protection for the does not capture important differences between social better-off, thereby undermining the universalist charac- programs with regard to their administration or ade- ter of the system (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Korpi & Palme, quacy in meeting social needs. When the principle of uni- 1998). For this reason, it can be argued that it is im- versalism was first promoted as a policy value in post- portant that social insurance systems have adequate war Britain through the so-called Beveridge plan in the earnings-related benefits in order to preserve univer- 1940s, universal social benefits were typically suggested salism in the sense of the system being used by all in- to be uniform, or the same for all individuals (Baldwin, come groups, not just those with relatively low incomes. 1992). Later, most countries extended benefits in uni- This “adequacy logic,” which was identified already by versal social programs to incorporate shifting needs and Titmuss (1955), is also applicable to the social services, benefit levels as well as principles of income protec- where public services of poor quality, or which are too tion (Anttonen, Häikiö, & Stefánsson, 2012, Chapter 1; restricted in scope to cover the needs of the majority Esping-Andersen, 1990). Furthermore, it appears that a of the population, may pave the way for complemen- more multi-dimensional interpretation of the concept is tary private markets. From this it follows that a univer- needed in order to understand the recent developments sal program is one that is not means-tested, is admin- in many