Scandinavian Activation Strategies in the 1990s: Recasting Social Citizenship and the Scandinavian Welfare Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally Sweden is heralded as epitomising the Scandinavian welfare model, not least to its perceived success in keeping unemployment and labour market inequalities low whilst still securing social protection and economic growth. In contrast, Denmark and Finland have been conceived as the Scandinavian “welfare laggards” primarily due to comparatively rudimentary active labour market policies. The development since 1990 has put an end to that. In fact there has been a role reversal. Denmark and Finland has been the most innovative in recasting a new Scandinavian activation strategy with a series of fundamental changes to their unemployment insurance and active labour market policies. Sweden followed their lead in 2001. This paper analyse these developments that have not been adequately addressed in the comparative welfare state research literature. It shows how the recast Scandinavian activation strategy is fundamentally different from the one prevalent at the onset of the 1990s, including in Sweden. Today social rights to economic compensation are complemented with rights to economic participation, and the obligations of unemployed to strive to become self-supportive have been markedly strengthened. The focus of active labour market policies is no longer to give unemployed new rights to benefit periods, but rather to aid them into work. As a consequence, the nature of social citizenship has changed towards a greater emphasis on participation just as the Scandinavian welfare state model have a greater degree of re-commodification than previously when de-commodification was at centre stage. This transformation of the Scandinavian welfare state has helped overcome some of the underlying pressures towards greater inequalities whilst still maintaining good social protection and without hampering economic growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".