Is poverty more damaging to health in Britain than in Sweden, and if so, why? Following previous research by the authors that suggested such an effect, a new comparative study is examining whether there are aspects of the social and policy context in Britain that add to and reinforce the health-damaging experience of being poor. Conversely, are there other aspects of living in Sweden that are supportive for people in poverty, which make the experience of poverty less stressful and health-damaging? Stemming from this ongoing study, the aim of this article is to present a framework for understanding the context in which social welfare policies are formed and operate in Britain and Sweden. It then uses the framework to consider the “upstream” influences of ideology, culture, and values on policy development in the two countries and what these developments might mean for the health and well-being of people facing financial adversity in the two societies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
NavarroV.MuntanerC.Toward an integrated political, economic and cultural understanding of health inequalities. In Political and Economic Determinants of Population Health and Well-being: Controversies and Developments, ed. NavarroV.MuntanerC., Baywood, Amityville, NY, 2004.
2.
NavarroV.The importance of the political and the social in explaining mortality differentials among the countries of the OECD, 1950–1998. In The Political and Social Contexts of Health, ed. NavarroV., Baywood, Amityville, NY, 2004.
3.
NavarroV.Summary and conclusions of the study. In The Political and Social Contexts of Health, ed. NavarroV., Baywood, Amityville, NY, 2004.
4.
WhiteheadM.BurströmB.DiderichsenF.Social policies and the pathways to inequalities in health: A comparative analysis of lone mothers in Britain and Sweden. Soc. Sci. Med.50:255–270, 2000.
5.
BurströmB.Lone mothers in Sweden: Trends in health and socio-economic circumstances, 1979–1995. J. Epidemiol. Community Health53:750–756, 1999.
6.
ShoulsS.The health and socio-economic circumstances of lone mothers over the last two decades: Lessons for social policy. Popul. Trends95:1–6, 1999.
7.
DiderichsenF.Sweden and Britain: The impact of policy context on inequities in health. In Challenging Inequities in Health: From Ethics to Action, ed. EvansT.Oxford University Press, New York, 2001.
YngweM. ÅbergThe role of income differences in explaining socioeconomic inequalities in self-rated health in Sweden and Britain. J. Epidemiol. Community Health55:556–561, 2001.
12.
JonesC.NovakT.Poverty, Welfare and the Disciplinary State. Routledge, London, 1999.
13.
WilkinsonR.The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier. Routledge, London, 2005.
14.
DaviesN.Dark Heart. Chatto and Windus, London, 1997.
15.
MauS.Welfare regimes and the norms of social exchange. Curr. Sociol.52:53–74, 2004.
16.
TimminsN.The Five Giants: A Biography of the Welfare State. Fontana Press, London, 1996.
17.
KleinR.The Politics of the NHS. Longman, London, 1983.
18.
WhiteheadM.Who cares about equity in the NHS?BMJ308:1284–1287, 1994.
19.
DarlingA.A New Contract for Welfare: Safeguarding Social Security. Social Security, Cm 4276. Stationery Office, London, 1999.
20.
PiachaudD.SutherlandH.How Effective Is the British Government's Attempt to Reduce Child Poverty? Innocenti Working Paper. UNICEF, Florence, Italy, 2000.
21.
BurströmB.Inequality in the social consequences of illness: How well do people with long-term illness fare in the British and Swedish labor markets?Int. J. Health Serv. 30:435–451, 2000.
22.
BurströmB.Winners and losers in flexible labor markets: The fate of women with chronic illness in contrasting policy environments—Sweden and Britain. Int. J. Health Serv. 33:199–217, 2003.
23.
AtkinsonA.Seeking to explain the distribution of income. In New Inequalities, ed. HillsJ., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
24.
DeaconA.Welfare and character. In Stakeholder Welfare. Institute for Economic Affairs, London, 1996.
25.
EvansM.New Deal for Lone Parents: Second Synthesis Report of the National Evaluation. Report prepared for the Department of Work and Pensions. University of Bath, Bath, U.K., 2003.
26.
BonjourD.KnightG.LissenburghS.Evaluation of New Deal for Young People in Scotland: Phase 2. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, Edinburgh, 2002.
27.
AnttonenA.Universalism and social policy: A Nordic-feminist revaluation. NORA—Nordic J. Women's Stud. 10:71–80, 2002.
28.
SiimB.The gendered Scandinavian welfare states: The interplay between women's roles as mothers, workers and citizens in Denmark. In Women and Social Policies in Europe: Work, Family and State, ed. LewisJ., Edward Elgar, Aldershot, U.K., 1995.
29.
Arve-ParesB.Reconciling Work and Family Life—A Challenge for Europe? Suppl. 3. Supplement to the official report from the Swedish Committee on the International Year of the Family. Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Stockholm, 1996.
30.
GornickJ.MayersM.RoisK.Supporting the employment of mothers: Policy variations across 14 welfare states. J. Eur. Soc. Policy7:45–70, 1997.
31.
Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Swedish Report on Measures to Prevent Poverty and Social Exclusion. Stockholm, June 2005.
32.
SainsburyD.Gender, Equality and Welfare States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
33.
Eurostat and United Nations. Women and Men in Europe and North America 1995. United Nations, Geneva, 1995.
34.
WilsonE.Women and the Welfare State. Tavistock, London, 1977.
35.
BradshawJ.The Employment of Lone Parents: A Comparison of Policy in 20 Countries. Family Policy Studies Centre, London, 1996.
36.
DuncanS.EdwardsR. (eds.). Single Mothers in an International Context: Mothers or Workers? UCL Press, London, 1997.
37.
ParkerH.Low Cost but Acceptable: A Minimum Income Standard for the UK: Families with Children. Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, Bristol, 1998.
38.
Department of Trade and Industry. Fairness at Work. White Paper. Cm 3968. Stationery Office, London, 1998.
39.
MelhuishE.Early Impacts of Sure Start Local Programmes on Children and Families. National Evaluation Report no. 13. Department for Education and Skills, London, 2005.
40.
MelhuishE.Variation in Sure Start Local Programmes Effectiveness: Early Preliminary Findings. National Evaluation Report no. 14. Department for Education and Skills, London, 2005.
41.
BosanquetH.The Family. Macmillan, London, 1906.
42.
BryanB.DadziS.ScafeS.The Heart of the Race: Black Women's Lives in Britain. Virago, London, 1985.
43.
HöjerK. J.Den svenska socialpolitiken—en översikt (Swedish social policy—an overview). Norstedts, Stockholm, 1969.
44.
Esping-AndersenG.The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, pp. 9–78. Polity Press, Oxford, 1990.
45.
GinsburgN.Divisions of Welfare: A Critical Introduction to Comparative Social Policy, pp. 30–66. Sage, London, 1992.
46.
NovakT.Poverty and the State: An Historical Sociology. Open University, Buckingham, U.K., 1988.
47.
KuivalainenS.Production of Last Resort Support: A Comparison on Social Assistance Schemes in Europe with the Notion of Welfare Production and the Concept of Social Right. Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series, Working Paper no. 397. Luxembourg, 2004.
48.
Child Poverty Action Group. Poverty: The Facts. London, 2005.
49.
SchorrA.The Personal Social Services: An Outside View. Joseph Rowntree, York, U.K., 1992.
50.
JonesC.Social work and poverty. In Blackwell Companion to Social Work, ed. DaviesM., Blackwell, Oxford, 1998.
51.
JonesC.Voices from the front line: Social workers and New Labour. Br. J. Soc. Work31:547–562, 2001.
52.
CraigG.Nightmare lottery of the Social Fund. Social Work Today, November 24, 1988, pp. 15–17.
53.
KumlinS.RothsteinB.Making and breaking social capital: The impact of welfare-state institutions. Comp. Polit. Stud.38:339–365, 2005.
54.
SalonenT.Margins of Welfare. Torna Hällestad Press, Torna Hällestad, Sweden, 1993.
