Even in Sweden, the social security system is failing people

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/30/sweden-social-security-system

Version 0 of 1.

We want to believe that in times of economic crisis it will be Sweden that sets an example, with its sophisticated and once visionary social security system. For my family of four, Sweden's affordable preschools and free universities make all the difference to our quality of life. We are happy to pay the high taxes to support this system.

Despite cutbacks, Sweden guarantees a full-time preschool place from a child's first birthday, with an income-based fee that can be as low as £10 a month. In my son's preschool, the teachers are certified in early childhood education, the teacher-to-child ratio is about 1:3, and there are two nutritious meals and two snacks available (with mostly organic ingredients).

Another essential feature of life here is that people without savings can easily access higher education throughout their lives. Universities and adult education are free.

For university education, the state offers six years of grant (equivalent to £260 a month), topped up with an optional loan (another £570 a month, paid back once you finish your studies at a rate adapted to your income, and paid in instalments for up to 25 years).

But despite a few excellent social policies, according to Tapio Salonen, professor of social work and dean at the Faculty of Health and Society at Malmö University, the redistributive goal of the social security system is failing, with increasing portions of benefits going to relatively well-off families instead of the poorest.

A recent Save the Children Sweden report called Välfärd, Inte För Alla (Welfare, Not For Everyone) shows that even though families with children have experienced a rising disposable income across all classes in Sweden from 1992 to 2008, there is a growing inequality between them, with the top fifth of income earners taking a bigger and bigger slice of the cake every year.

Salonen describes the current labour market as unforgiving to inexperienced applicants and yet a third of unemployed people in Sweden are not eligible for unemployment benefits. The försörjningsstöd ("living support") is the last alternative for people who cannot provide for themselves, and who were not eligible for any other type of help. The amount of people in this category is increasing, yet the försörjningsstöd is harder and harder to qualify for.

It was designed to provide people with temporary assistance to allow them to have a decent standard of living. Yet in the current economic conditions, Salonen says the försörjningsstöd is too little for a family to live on comfortably, and an increasing number of people are relying on it long-term.

According to the Save the Children report, in 2010, 242,000 children (or 12.7% of children) in Sweden were living in poverty. Children from families with an immigrant background, who live in the suburbs of the big cities or with a lone parent, are the most vulnerable.

The report describes child poverty as a living standard that is too low for the child to participate in their school and extra-curricular life as other children can, with all the equipment and clothing required for these activities. Homelessness is also on the rise in Sweden. In the past 13 years, it has quadrupled from 8,300 people to 34,000, out of Sweden's 9 million inhabitants. The main reason is unemployment. It's hard for unemployed people to get housing because of few affordable properties to rent, and landlords have stopped taking people on försörjningsstöd.

Anneli Nordström, head of the Kommunal, the biggest union in Sweden with 500,000 members, argues that the Swedish welfare system is being dismantled, with diminishing resources available and well-qualified staff losing jobs in the health sector.

Mats Olsson, professor of economic history and Vänsterpartiet (Left party) representative in Lund Commune, says that since the Alliansen centre-right government came to power in 2006, it has legislated for tax cuts worth approximately £14bn, including lowering income tax and abolishing property tax. This year, a further estimated £1.4bn cuts are expected by lowering corporate taxes.

These tax cuts have been financed by direct cuts to the welfare system, says Olsson, including the safety net for sick, poor and unemployed people and by not recalculating money handed out to municipalities to reflect higher costs and inflation. This then reduces local and regional government welfare and social care spending.

If the Swedish government continues to try to rationalise the welfare system, such policies in the long term will cost Swedish society far more than they save.