Social Work and Nordic Welfare Policies For Children

This article was downloaded by: [Tata Institute of Social Sciences]
On: 31 August 2012, At: 08:54

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Social Work

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cesw20
Social work and Nordic welfare policies

for childrenpresent challenges in the
light of the past
Gudny Bjrk Eydal & Mirja Satka
Version of record first published: 19 Jan 2007
To cite this article: Gudny Bjrk Eydal & Mirja Satka (2006): Social work and Nordic welfare
policies for childrenpresent challenges in the light of the past , European Journal of Social Work,
9:3, 305-322
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691450600828358
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Vol. 9, No. 3, September 2006, pp. 305 322
Social work and Nordic welfare

policies for children*present
challenges in the light of the past1
Downloaded by [Tata Institute of Social Sciences] at 08:54 31 August 2012
Gudny Bjork Eydal & Mirja Satka
The aim of this article is to explore welfare policies for children in five Nordic
countries*Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden*and in that context
identify what kinds of issues and challenges social work is currently facing. The data
reviewed consist of policy documents, law texts, official reports, statistics, professional
texts, and previous research. Policies and laws on childrens protection; provisions,
including policies on state benefits and care for children; and the autonomous integrity of
children in terms of the norms and policies concerning their participation, in particular
in public everyday life, are analysed from a historical perspective. Hence, future
challenges for social work are analysed in light of the past. Our conclusion is that social
workers have a unique opportunity, based on their close encounters with children as
clients, to work for the realisation of childrens rights. Furthermore, by applying a holistic
perspective to issues of childhood and parenthood, social workers can contribute to the
development of knowledge on how welfare systems can meet the challenges brought about
by the new ideas of childrens rights, social changes, globalisation, and the new
ideological concepts of risk that have arisen in child welfare.
Keywords: Childrens Rights; Welfare Policies for Children; Nordic History of Childhood;
Welfare State
Artikkeli tarkastelee lasten hyvinvointipolitiikan kehitysta viidessa Pohjoismaassa*

Tanskassa, Suomessa, Islannissa, Norjassa ja Ruotsissa*ja sen valossa sita millaisia
kysymyksia ja haasteita taman paivan lasten hyvinvoinnin parissa tehtava sosiaalityo
Correspondence to: Gudny Bjork Eydal, Assistant Professor of Social Work, Department of Social Work, Faculty
of Social Science, University of Iceland, Oddi v/Sturlugotu, 101 Reykjavk, Iceland. Tel.: /354 89753322; Email:
ge@hi.is; or Mirja Satka, Professor of Social Work, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of
Helsinki, PO Box 18, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. Tel.: / 358-9-191124563; Email:
mirja.satka@helsinki.fi
ISSN 1369-1457 (print)/ISSN 1468-2664 (online) # 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13691450600828358
306 G. B. Eydal & M. Satka
kohtaa. Artikkelissa on kaytetty aineistona erilaisia politiikkadokumentteja, lakeja,

julkisia raportteja,tilastoja, professionaalisia kirjoituksia seka aiempaa tutkimusta.
Artikkelissa analysoidaan historiallisesta nakokulmasta lastensuojelun, sosiaalipalvelujen, lapsille suunnattujen sosiaalisten tukien seka lasten osallistumista koskevia normeja
ja toimintapolitiikkaa. Sosiaalityon tulevaisuushaasteita analysoidaan menneisyyden
valossa. Johtopaatoksemme on, etta sosiaalityontekijoilla on ainutlaatuinen mahdollisuus, joka perustuu heidan laheisiin tyoskentelysuhteisiinsa vaikeissa elamantilanteissa
olevien lasten kanssa, olla lasten oikeuksien todellisia toimeenpanijoita. Lisaksi
lapsuuden ja vanhemmuuden nakokulmat yhdistavasta toimintapaikastaan kasin juuri
sosiaalityontekijat voivat vaikuttaa tutkimukseen ja kehittamiseen niin, etta hyvinvointipalvelut ja etuudet kohtaisivat nykyista joustavammin lasten oikeuksien, yleisen
yhteiskuntamuutoksen, globalisaation ja kovin ideologisena pitamamme riskiajattelun
haasteet.
Avainsanat: Lasten Oikeudet; Lasten Hyvinvointipolitiikka; Pohjoismaisen Lapsuuden
Historia; Hyvinvointivaltio
Introduction
In the welfare literature, the Nordic countries have been categorised as belonging to
the Social Democratic or the Scandinavian welfare model. One of the key goals of the
Nordic welfare system has been to ensure childrens welfare and protection. Despite
growth in both childhood and welfare studies, the holistic picture of Nordic welfare
policies for children still remains vague throughout the literature (e.g. Archard, 2002;
Bradbury et al., 2001; Thomas, 2000; Brembeck et al., 2004). Children have been a
key consumer group of both benefits and services in the Nordic welfare states.
However, they are at the same time relatively invisible in welfare policy research both
in regards to vocabulary and theories (see e.g. Esping-Andersen, 1990; Sainsbury,
1994; Kautto et al., 1999; Nordlund, 2003). When Nordic welfare policies for children
have been the focal point of study, the studies have emphasised single polices aimed
at children, rather than providing a holistic picture (e.g. Bartley, 1998; Eydal, 2000;
Forssen, 1998; Sipila, 1997; Wennemo, 1994; Pringle & Harder, 1999).2
There are various reasons why Nordic children have remained relatively invisible in
the Nordic welfare model and discourse. To mention a few, they have been
conceptualised as dependent family members, and childhood has been perceived as
the necessary transition period towards full citizenship of the welfare state. Social
scientists have only relatively recently started to develop research approaches which
enable the investigation of children as active social agents, and childhood as a phase
of human life with its own social dynamics.
The aim of this article is to explore Nordic welfare policies for children and, in that
light, the kinds of issues and challenges social work is facing. Social workers do
contribute to the social construction of childhood in their daily practices in various
ways. In some cases it is a clearly defined task, e.g. when a social worker has to take
307
decisions about his/her actions based on a definition of the childs best interests. The
dilemmas raised by the childs right to participate in decision making in child
protection have been discussed in the social work literature (e.g. Andersson, 2000;
Pringle & Harder, 1999; Thomas, 2000). However, in most cases the professions
contribution to the construction of childhood through daily practices is less obvious
and still invisible in the literature. We believe that it is of vital importance to analyse
and discuss further challenges and tasks that social work has to face. As the title of the
article shows, we believe that a fruitful way to do this is by analysing future challenges
in the light of the past.
In the late nineteenth century, the Nordic nation-states regarded children to be a
crucial national investment for the future. Great resources were invested in improving
childrens well-being, and children were an important object of knowledge brought
under adult gaze and surveillance. Early welfare state practices were established based
on this notion of children and childhood, whereas from the beginning of the
twentieth century, the complicated social processes of late modernity*leading, for
example, to a new sense of uncertainty and a redefinition of the concept of risk,
expanding requirements for reflexivity in welfare organisations, and increasing
individualisation in childrens everyday life (e.g. Beck, 1992, 1998; Bauman, 1993)*
have contributed to the conditions and experiences of childhood as well as to the
social relations of children and adults.
The focal point of our study is the analysis of law and public policies, which are
regarded to be indicators of dominant social concepts, values and norms in a society.
In this article, child law and public policies for children are taken as manifestations of
adults views of children and childhood (cf. James & James, 2004, p. 215). The
literature refers to different concepts of these child policies: for example, social
policies for children, child welfare policies and child protection policies. We have
chosen the term welfare policies for children to encompass the various policies that
are aimed at children and formed within the framework of the Nordic welfare state,
usually by law. Our data consist of policy documents, law texts, official reports,
statistics, professional texts, and previous research. The framework developed for this
study emphasises as variables (cf. Therborn, 1993, p. 245) public policies and laws
on childrens protection, including elements both of preventive criminal policy and of
public intervention in child neglect maltreatment and abuse; provision, including
policies on state benefits and care for children; and the autonomous integrity of
children in terms of the norms and policies concerning their participation, in
particular in public everyday life, which has developed during recent decades.
The origin of the Nordic welfare states: laws and policies on child protection
The nineteenth century was the dawn of the Nordic industrial communities. In these
communities, one of the most disconcerting ills was wandering or idle children on
the streets, since these communities were lacking the structure previously provided by
the household and work on the farms. In the spirit of nationalism, childrens
protection from various social ills became the social issue and even priority in the
contemporary political debate. Beside the laws on child protection, most nations
made laws that created a legal framework for childhood at the early phase of
industrialisation. Therborn concludes, . . . the two most important definers of
childhood have been legislation concerning compulsory education and labour. A
child has become someone who is too young to work, and someone who has not
finished his/her elementary education (Therborn, 1993, pp. 247248). Legislation
based on such a view of children came into force in most countries by the late
nineteenth or early twentieth century. As a result of the emerging ideologies of childsaving, the developing nation state became aware that child labour was threatening
the future of the state. Instead, children were seen as future citizens and a source of
national strength. Using the more industrialised European countries as an example,
the Nordic states promoted first, labour legislation in order to protect young children
from long working hours, and second, they established compulsory education for
every child between limited years of age (Therborn, 1993).
Therborn also discusses the importance of criminal and penal laws, child
protection laws and laws that regulate sexuality and the age of marriage in relation
to a definition of childhood. He points out that, besides the constitution of childhood
by law, the Nordic countries also emphasised the emancipation of children since the
beginning of the twentieth century. This was accomplished by making laws that
ensured: (1) equal parenthood when both parents gained rights to legal custody of
their children; (2) that childrens interests were considered when deciding custody
after divorce; and (3) that children born in and out of wedlock had the same rights to
an inheritance, and already bore the name of their father during the period from 1910
to the 1920s.
At the same time Nordic states started to implement new ideas of preventive
criminal and penal laws. Their importance was that they defined Nordic children as
too young to be responsible for their acts, and consequently, started to sanction
children differently from adults for the first time (e.g. Kumlien, 1997; Harrikari,
2004a). These legislative processes were partly a result of increasing international
exchange of ideas. Many of them came either from continental Europe or from the
US. In addition, since the early twentieth century, it was common among the
responsible civil servants in each country to participate in Nordic co-operation and
exchange of ideas. In particular the exchange became visible in inter-Nordic
conferences and publications on criminal justice and child welfare. Thus, the first
Nordic acts of child protection were very much a part of the European child saving
and penal reform movements at the turn of the 1800s and early 1900s. In diverse
national reform processes concerning childrens welfare, the novel European ideas,
like scientific prevention of future social ills, were applied differently based on the
particular social circumstances of each country, and in the frame of its previously
existing laws, norms and institutional forms of intervention (e.g. Stang Dahl, 1985;
Kumlien, 1997; Harrikari, 2004a; Satka, 2003).
309
Thus, in all the Nordic countries childhood was constructed as a particular and
formally defined phase of life when citizens would prepare themselves for the future,
and during this preparation they were targeted under special instructive programming (i.e. school curriculum) as well as particular controls of behaviour, like child
protection. When national acts of child protection came into effect in the early years
of the twentieth century, they started to reproduce similar or related objectives for
modern childhood in all five countries.
The first Nordic act on child protection was accepted in 1899 in Norway, Sweden
followed in 1902, Finland in 1936, Denmark in 1905, and Iceland in 1932. Finland
and Iceland were the latecomers when it came to processing their acts on child
protection, although Finland was an integral partner in the discourse of Nordic child
welfare since the first years of the twentieth century.3 Similarly, childrens protection
was addressed in Icelandic legislation, but a comprehensive child protection act did
not come into force until 1932 (Kristinsdottir, 1991).
It was common for the early acts of child protection to be a combination of norms
and regulations, the aim of which was to intervene in problems of ill-treated children
or deviant children in order to benefit the aims of the Nordic states. Over the
following decades, the Nordic acts of child protection modernised and their
implementation became more effective due to the increasing number of professionals
for children who were familiar with child psychology, child psychiatry, social work
and family therapy. In the1950s, discourses emphasised novel human emotions and
human relations in families in general, and especially between mother and child. In
contemporary child protection practices the consequence was that institutional
childcare was limited, and the state authorities, together with voluntary associations,
were promoting increasing monetary (e.g. child allowance) and mental (e.g. family
counselling) support for biological mothers to provide care in person for their small
children (e.g. Pulma, 1987; Satka, 2003).
As Table 1 shows, steps have been taken at various points, but in most cases all five
countries have reached the same conclusions. An important characteristic of child
protection law is that childrens corporal punishment has been banned in all Nordic
schools, and in 1972, pioneering the movement, Norway abolished the right of
parents to spank their children. Sweden followed suit in 1979, Finland in 1983,
Table 1 Nordic law on child protection
Country
First Act of Child

Protection
Law against rights of parents

to use corporal punishment
Children have a say according

to Act on Child Protection
Denmark
Finland
Iceland
Norway
Sweden
1905
1936
1932
1900
1902
1985
1983

1972
1979
n.a.
1983
1966
1953
1980
Sources : Alingistindi (1966), Satka (1994), Stang Dahl (1985) and Therborn (1993).
Denmark in 1985 (Therborn, 1993). So far, a special law against corporal punishment
does not exist in Iceland but the laws on child protection (Barnaverndarlog nr. 80/
2002) include a general ban on the maltreatment of children. Although a specific law
has not been proposed, the dominant Icelandic attitude towards corporal punishment seems to be similar to those in other Nordic countries (Freysteinsdottir, 2005;
Julusdottir et al., 1995).
Many of the Nordic laws concerning welfare policies for children have increasingly
emphasised the importance of childrens right to participation. Such emphasis can
also be observed in child welfare laws which gradually provided the right for children
to have a say in their own matters, specifically when major decisions were made by
authorities when protecting their interests. Usually such rights were limited to
children older than 12, but the recent development has followed the directives of the
United Nations Convention that states that these rights should be enforced based on
the childs maturity rather than age (Hestbk, 1998).
The Nordic welfare state and provision for children
In practice, the industrialised and urbanised social democratic welfare state only
developed towards the Nordic welfare model after the Second World War. Children
and youths were considered an essential future investment for the state. In the same
sense the daily living conditions of children were supported by various state benefits,
and by various child-friendly family policies. During this period, developments were
characterised by an increasingly institutionalised childhood. It included services and
policies from well organised maternal care to various preventive youth policies
covering large numbers of young people. The primary site of childhood was the
nuclear family in joint co-operation with public day-care and public schools
resourced and controlled by the nation state (Brembeck et al., 2004). The aim of
the universal social policy was to ensure social security for all citizens, in particular
for children.
Earlier, the daily care of small children was considered a responsibility of the
extended family or household. Around the 1880s, an intervention in a childs daily
care made by either a philanthropic association or the local community tended to be
interpreted in terms of child protection (cf. Stang Dahl, 1985; Pulma, 1987). After the
Second World War, there was a clear shift in policy ideals, and for example, the
benefits of public pre-school education for all children were emphasised (Antman,
1996; Rostgaard & Fridberg, 1998; Sipila, 1997). Childcare slowly became a political,
and thus a major public issue in the Nordic countries (Bjornberg, 1992; Valimaki &
Rauhala, 2000). Both public day-care services and various schemes of paid care leave
(for example, parental leave) were developed in order to enable parents to provide
care for their children at home. Since then, the division of labour between the state
and families has been a central issue concerning childcare policies in the Nordic
countries. There have been two main arguments for state interventions and support:
(1) it is essential to support the family to ensure the best interests of the child; and
311
(2) to ensure that mothers have an equal opportunity to participate in the labour
market or, vice versa, have an opportunity to attend to social reproduction
(Rostgaard & Fridberg, 1998; Leira, 1987).
Day-care services that were originally a solution for solving the assumed problems
of certain groups of children, have increasingly become a universal legal right of all
children (Sipila, 1997). Similarly, in all Nordic countries, payments in connection
with childbirth are considered a universal right of both parents, ensuring that each
child is entitled to parental care from the very beginning. There is an increasing
emphasis on the rights of children to the care of both parents in childcare policies,
which are in line with developments in Nordic family legislation. During the 1990s,
all Nordic countries introduced special schemes of paternity leave in order to ensure
the rights of fathers to entitlements and the rights of children to their care (e.g. Eydal,
2000, 2004).
Viewed from outside, and in comparison to other nations, the Nordic countries
have developed similar provisions of day-care and support for families with young
children. Nevertheless, when the care policies during the 1990s are examined more
closely, differences between the Nordic countries seem to be growing. According to
Leira (1999, p. 271) there appear to be three sets of policies among the Nordic
countries: (1) the cash-for-childcare schemes, which encourages the traditional,
gender-differentiated family; (2) the state sponsoring of childcare, which facilitates
the employment of mothers and the dual-earning family; and (3) legislation
concerning maternity, paternity, and parental leave, which supports dual-earning
and care-sharing parenthood. It is clear that Norway and Finland have developed
their childcare polices as a mixture of all three sets. Sweden and Iceland have
emphasised policies on public day-care institutions and parental leave with an
emphasis on the participation of fathers. Denmark is more in line with Sweden, but
did also have a scheme that enabled parents to stay at home with young children after
parental leaves until 2001. Thus, despite the common ideology that the care of young
children is the joint responsibility of parents and the state, there exists a considerable
diversity within the Nordic model as pointed out by several scholars (Broddadottir
et al., 1997; Leira, 1992, 1999, 2002; Ronsen, 1999; Rostgaard & Fridberg, 1998;
Rostgaard et al., 1999; Rostgaard, 2002; Salmi & Lammi-Taskula, 1999).
What do these different models have in common? The general tendency has been
towards a gradual increase in the provision of support with public care schemes and
payments to parents for the care of their children. The childcare policies are clearly
based on the principle that caring for young children is a joint responsibility of state
and parents. At the same time, there is also a growing conceptualisation of the childs
right to a certain kind of care; for example, a universal right to public day-care from a
certain age or the right to care from both parents during the first months emphasised
by the law on fathers special rights to paternity leave. Childcare policies have shifted
from an emphasis on protection towards provision, but now increasingly on the
terms of the children. An example of such a shift towards the terms of children is
the Swedish day-care system, which for decades had been under the jurisdiction of
Table 2 Care for children in Nordic countries: day care provisions and number of weeks
of parental leave and paid care leave: in 2002
Maximum number of
weeks in which maternity/
paternity/ parental leave
benefits are payable
Of which (weeks):
Maternity leave/
only mother
Paternity leave/
only father
Additionally: father
together with mother
Home care allowance
% of children in day-care
0 2 years
3 5 years
Denmark
Finland
Iceland
Norway
Sweden
52
44
39
42 52
69
18
18
13
None
None
13
None
Until child
is: 3 years
None
Until child
is: 3 years
None
36
67
72
93
40
82
65
91
2
None*
78
94
Notes : * Abolished in 2002, instead integrated in the Flexible maternity/paternity and parental leave scheme,
altogether 52 weeks.
Sources : Children enrolled in day care institutions: Social Protection in the Nordic Countries 2002 (2004).
Maximum number of weeks in which maternity payments are payable: Social Protection in Nordic countries 2002
(2004) and Rostgaard (2002).
Child care leave: Social Protection in the Nordic Countries 2002 (2004).
the Social Department, but since 2003 has been under the jurisdiction of the Ministry
of Education with the day-care institutions being redefined as pre-schools
(Skolverket, 2003).
Another type of highly institutionalised provision is state support to parents in the
form of family benefits and other kinds of transferences. All Nordic countries have
paid family benefits since the 1940s (Wennemo, 1994). Despite the fact that all the
Nordic countries have developed somewhat country-specific schemes, they all have
family benefits, state guaranteed maintenance payments and local social services that
provide assistance to parents in need. The concern has been that all children should
be entitled to basic security and if parents could not provide it, then it was the role of
the state or local authorities to do so (e.g. Wennemo, 1994; Skevik, 2003). Thus, the
social rights of children to support regardless of their parents reasons for not being
able to provide a living for their family, has been a key element in all five countries for
decades.
The provision of support to parents caring for their children, parental leave
schemes, equal access to institutions of early education and schools, health care
services and system of various schemes of financial support for families with children,
including child/family benefits is aimed at creating equal living standards and equal
opportunities for all children. The implications this has for childhood are that the
313
Table 3 Nordic countries: law on family benefits and day care institutions and legal rights
of children to day care
Country
Law on family benefits for

families with children
Law on public
day care
Children gain legal right

to public day-care
Denmark
Finland
Iceland
Norway
Sweden
1946
1948
1946
1946
1948
1964
1973
1973
1975
1973
1998
1990
None
None*
1985
Notes : * In the 1990s, the Norwegian government expressed its intention to make day-care available for all
children (Nordlund, 2003, p. 81).
lafsson (1999), Sipila (1997), Anttonen and Sipila (2000) and Nordlund (2003).
Sources : Wennemo (1994), O
child is seen as a joint responsibility of parents and the state, and it is regarded to be
the duty of the state to contribute to both the costs and care for the children.
Post-industrial Nordic welfare states and children: new risks, policies on participation
and the implementation of international agreements
This period is characterised by, on the one hand, greater legal rights for children, and
on the other hand, new kinds of risks. One of the core characteristics of the Nordic
welfare model is indeed the relatively early recognition of childrens legal rights.
When compared with other countries, Therborn (1993, p. 265) concludes, The
Nordic countries have remained in the forefront of childrens rights. His conclusion
of the long line is:
Characteristic of recent developments *apart from a converging tendency to
equalise the rights of children inside and outside marriage *have been an
increasing attention to and recognition of childrens autonomy and integrity *in
classical human rights language of their right to liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. (Therborn, 1993, p. 264)
This development took place via the different acts on childrens rights, family law and
related legislation.
Beginning in the late 1960s, there started to emerge a new generation of ideas
concerning welfare policies for children. One of the key terms of this timely discourse,
as well as the leading principle of the new legislation for child welfare, was, the best
interest of the child. This novel idea was presented in each Nordic country in
connection with the contemporary international debate about childrens global rights.
This debate was considerably promoted by the International Year of the Child 1979
(see e.g. Bartley, 1998, pp. 4758; Barnaret I Norden, 1980, p. 9) opened up by the
United Nations with its Declaration of the Rights of the Child (originally 1948, and
1959). Other common features of this new concern for childrens welfare, seen as a
broad, societal matter, was a strengthened emphasis on childrens environmental
contexts, and on each childs individual autonomy and personal integrity. They
became visible for instance in the importance given to the safe and healthy living
environments of families with children, in promoting social integration in local
communities, and in improving local environments in co-operation with various
professionals and children themselves. In the Nordic context, these ideas (e.g. the idea
of the active child, or structural prevention of social problems) were promoted in
connection with ideas of equal educational opportunities for children regardless of
social background, geographical location, gender or ethnicity.
The ratification the UNCRC (1989) was tightly binding the Nordic countries in the
implementation of global ideology and policies, whose aims were in many ways
parallel to the aims of the 1980s Nordic welfare ideology (cf. Bartley, 1998, pp. 5964;
Therborn, 1993, pp. 255257). All the Nordic countries demonstrated in different
ways a political will to shift the national child welfare agenda from a set of limited
measures concerning specified groups of children into full-blown policy pertaining to
the child population as a whole. The child as an autonomous subject was recognised
and the understanding of childhood started to change in every Nordic country.
Bartley (1998), who conducted comparative research on how different European
countries lived up to what had been ratified in the Convention, noticed that there are
some differences among the Nordic countries. Her conclusion shows that there are no
clear-cut pictures that can be presented, and none of the countries studied follows the
Convention fully. However, her study shows some resemblances among Denmark,
Sweden and Norway, which all adhere closely to the resolutions of the Convention. It
is Norway that tends to be the leading country when it comes to the child as an actor.
And indeed, Norway has been the first country to ensure childrens rights in various
aspects of Nordic policy; the first child protection law, the first to ensure equal
inheritance rights, the first to ban corporal punishment, and the first to establish a
childrens Ombudsman as early as 1981 (Therborn, 1993). All five Nordic countries
have established the office of Ombudsman, or in the case of Denmark, The National
Council of Children. Its role is to speak on behalf of children, and be an advocate on
their behalf (Log um umbosmann barna nr. 83/1994; Therborn, 1993). The
Ombudsmen have played a very important role regarding implementation of the
Convention, not least when it comes to ensuring that childrens voices are raised and
heard. Article 12 of the Convention grants children the right to have their views heard
and to be given weight in accordance with their age and maturity (Daniel & Ivatts,
1998). Such rights are ensured through various laws in all Nordic countries.
However, childrens participation has not been fully examined in the Nordic
countries. In this respect Nordic welfare policies for children are far from
evolutionary developments. The following quotations from Norway and Finland
defend two different ideologies concerning childrens participation. The picture
drawn by the Norwegian researchers Kjorholt and Liden (2004, pp. 6667) states:
The emphasis on childrens and youths rights to participation in Norway in recent
years, may be seen as a further extension of democratic rights to a new and
disenfranchised group [ . . . ] A survey of participatory activities in Norway
315
confirms that the idea of childrens participation is widespread in the country.

During the period 1985 1995, four of ten municipalities reported that they had
developed participatory projects.
The conclusion of a Finnish researcher is a strikingly different definition of the

conditions in his country. Harrikari (2004b, pp. 94100) writes:
In the 1990s [ . . . ] The aim to bring up ordinary citizens was given up, and [ . . . ]
children were now seen more as a national item of expenditure under the influence
of the new liberal social policy and the monetarist financial policy [ . . . ] The
appearance of police as experts of childhood was affirmed [ . . . ] The risk policy
and early intervention has been an essential part of the new liberal social policy
[ . . . ] the perspective of childrens participation has been forced aside and the
perspective of strengthening parenthood was increased in governmental programs.
Consequently the imported social political discourses, the idea of the active child
of the 1970s, has been recently reconstructed on the one hand as the wicked child, and
on the other, as the innocent and weak child in need of strong adult protection and
control in Finland (Harrikari, 2004b; cf. Garret, 2003). Norway, under the same
discursive pressures, seems to have been able to maintain and even strengthen
childrens participation as part of its modernisation processes. From the point of view
of Nordic welfare policies for children, the most alarming issue is found within the
Finnish realm, and similar developments, i.e. introducing the idea of risk (see Garret,
2003; Prout, 2003) leads towards a highly individualised understanding of social
problems, and this view works effectively against all major principles of the CRC. The
proper site for childrens participation is her/his private family under responsible
parental leadership, the provision of services for children needs to be cut in the name
of economic necessity, and protection becomes an issue of moral panic effectively
promoted by the media requiring measures of early individual prevention and harsh
control. First, Finnish MPs have made formal parliament initiatives in order to
remove the minimum age of criminal responsibility along with wide support from
other parties MPs (Harrikari, 2004b). Second, the idea of individual risk, that is
Table 4 Development of Nordic child welfare policies, childrens participation
Country
Equal inheritance for

all children (1)
Law on Ombudsman
for Children (2)
Ratification of
the CRC (3)
Denmark
Finland
Iceland
Norway
Sweden
1937
1975
1921
1915
1970
1994
1995
1994
1981
1993
1991
1991
1992
1991
1990
Notes : (1) Therborn (1993).

(2) Denmark: The Ministry of Social Affairs Executive Order No. 2 of 5 January 1998 (The National Council for
Children); Iceland: Log um umbosmann barna nr. 83/1994, and Bartley (1998, pp. 176 179).
(3) Iceland: Samningur Sameinuu joanna um rettindi barnsins nr. 18/1992, Bartley (1998, p. 46) and Alanen
et al . (2004).
individualised risk instead of a collective responsibility of peoples risks, undermines

the long line of Nordic welfare policies for children in which the structural prevention
of social problems and shared social responsibility of childrens well-being and
equality has been the underlying idea (Julkonen & Harder, 2004). Generally speaking,
and lacking comparative Nordic research on childrens participation, this right seems
to be the least developed and the most questioned right of Nordic children. Even in
Norway local initiatives involving childrens participation are often marked by the
mixed motives of the adults involved, and by the lack of sustained and lasting change
in institutional practices (see Kjorholt & Liden, 2004). The practical challenges for
responsible adults are many. Also, young people need induction, support and
training. As the approach and understanding of adults and children may not be the
same, developing non-authoritarian ways of working is essential for productive
outcomes (see e.g. Rayner, 2003; Roberts, 2003).
Despite this one example from Finland along with the growing awareness about
childrens situations, Nordic children have never before been ensured as high a level
of legal rights towards protection, provision and participation as they do today. At the
same time, family relations have become more complicated, uncertain and varying*
the statistics do not even capture the variability of ever-changing family forms that
children widely experience. During the period in question, Nordic welfare states have
also experienced new challenges. Beginning from the late 1980s, the rationality on
which the child friendly Nordic welfare states were built was put under test for many
reasons. Under the pressures of global capitalism, the Nordic welfare policies are
increasingly individualised. In many cases, the politicians have adopted a new
morality towards increased control and the activation of citizens who are expected to
be ever more responsible for themselves and their families than they were 20 years
ago. In addition, the everyday life of children and families has transformed.
Researchers (e.g. Bardy et al., 2001) have produced evidence of increasing
differentiation of Nordic childrens living circumstances; some seem to live in
affluence whereas others suffer from poverty. Furthermore, this is also confirmed by
the comparative research on child poverty (e.g. Vleminckx & Smeeding, 2001;
Bradbury et al., 2001; Jarventie & Sauli, 2001). The poverty figures are low from a
comparative perspective; however, keeping in mind the investments of the Nordic
welfare states to create equality among their citizens, the figures are a serious
reminder. In addition to economic deprivation, larger groups of children who spend
their childhood in transactional cultural environments experience a greater lack of
resources and even exclusion than children of national majorities.
Besides the economical risks, globalisation and electronic media have created new
opportunities and risks. Consequently, risk itself has taken on a new form; now a
child that is physically safe sitting in his/her room can still be at risk via electronic
media, to which Nordic children generally have a high access. In addition, new needs
to protect children have surfaced; for example, virtual violence mediated through the
electronic media (Buckingham, 2003). Similarly, it has been debated to what extent
the state should protect children from the market by banning advertisements aimed
317
at children (Olesen, 2004; Berggren Torell, 2004). In these matters, the Nordic welfare
state has been unprepared to act effectively.
Some researchers argue that the Nordic Welfare Model has survived many of the
new challenges and there is good reason to question whether the Nordic welfare state
has succeeded in providing and protecting its children in accordance with its own
universal policy goals. In addition to these new tasks, mandated by changes in the
labour market, families and the virtual media, there are also challenges brought about
by the fact that the Nordic countries are becoming increasingly multi-cultural
societies. This is particularly challenging for authorities whose knowledge and
practices were developed for mono-cultural conditions. From the point of view of
childrens equal treatment in everyday practices with their teachers and social
workers, the professions multi-cultural skills are crucial (cf. Pitkanen & Kouki, 2002).
Concluding discussion
The socially constructed childhood, an acknowledgement of childhood research over
recent decades, invites many new questions *such as what societal forces are steering
the practices and ideas of childhood in social work? What site should social work
theory as well as professional practice take? All reflective voices are important for the
future. In some well-known historical analyses it has been argued how the trajectory
of child welfare develops between the coercive and welfare elements of child care
intervention (e.g. Dozelot, 1980; Garland, 1985). When social work is not considered
successful enough using its ordinary methods and social services, the likelihood
increases to use the law instead, writes Parton (1991). It would be very challenging to
argue the universal Nordic welfare policies for children have recently met and are
currently meeting the coercive and individualistic turn of the new liberalism.
However, whether and to what extent this is true, remains an open issue in need of
further elaboration. In any case, Nordic welfare policies for children, with their
particular universal constructions of childhood, are not as well-developed and stable
as many Nordic people and experts of childhood want to believe*the realisation of
childrens rights is not completed yet. Nordic welfare policies have not been reflexive
enough to meet the new challenges. For example, detailed studies of childrens
participation from Norway reveal numerous structural barriers in the welfare
apparatus itself for the active child in practice (see Kjorholt & Liden, 2004). In
addition, the new discourse of risk works against the widely shared Nordic
consensus of childrens welfare as a common political concern. It also threatens
participation rights for children, seeing children as potentially irresponsible
individuals in need of early prevention by adults rather than young people in
need of individual autonomy or personal integrity.
Alan Prout (2003) suggests a solution to the ambiguity about the liberalist images
of childhood; i.e. the idea of children as social persons. Its prerequisite is a covenant
between generations, children and society, in addition to the bond between parents
and the child that provides a decent or civic childhood for every child. Thus, the
welfare state is fundamental from the point of view of childrens welfare and equality.
However, the existing, historically evolved means of the Nordic welfare states are not
flexible enough to equalise the diverse conditions of childrens lives, and to tackle the
diverse conditions of individualisation and globalisation since in todays situation
it will mean treating children the same may have to mean different (Prout, 2003,
p. 19).
Thus, a critical reflection is needed on the way resources are made available to
children, and to childrens welfare institutions. Social workers and other professionals
in childrens services need to reconsider their responsiveness to childrens knowledge
and opinions. They also have to address the issue: who is to speak for children in
decisions about resource allocation and how is inter-generational distributive justice
to be achieved? These are partly new issues for the Nordic welfare state, and therefore
the question remains open: who is going to lobby for children? Who is going to take
on the responsibility of working with children as social persons and young citizens,
i.e. to empower children as social actors?
First, this requires moving away from narrow conceptions of citizenship that
exclude non-citizens as well as citizens under a certain age limit. In the Nordic
countries, we have seen a remodification of the concept of citizenship several times in
history, for example, in relation to gender (for example, Hirdman, 1990). Now, the
task is to apply the social model of citizenship to children and young people, i.e. to
look critically at adult-centred normal practices, to work with children as subjects in
their own right, and to develop ways of working that make childrens contributions
possible in all welfare practices involving them. Second, social workers have more
than 100 years of practice with various silent groups throughout society. They have
developed methods ranging from radical community work to individual casework.
Therefore, we believe that social workers have the means to construct innovative tools
and appropriate theoretical knowledge to enable such a development. Through their
close encounters with children as clients, social workers have a unique opportunity
and ethical duty to work towards the realisation of childrens rights. By applying a
holistic perspective to issues of childhood and parenthood, social workers can
contribute to the development of knowledge about how the welfare systems in the
Nordic countries and elsewhere can meet the challenges regarding these new ideas on
childrens rights, social changes, globalisation, and the new ideological concepts of
risk that have arisen in child welfare.
Notes
[1]
[2]
This research has been completed as part of a Nordic research network in childhood research
1999 2004 (Brembeck et al. , 2004). The authors are professors of social work in two
different Nordic countries, Finland and Iceland, which are on the peripheries of Europe and
often classified as the exception of the Nordic model based on Scandinavian countries, i.e.
Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
A delightful exception from this is the classical article by Therborn (1993) on Politics of
Childhood , where he paints a clear picture of how childhood was socially constructed by law
[3]
319
applying both historical and comparative perspective, as we will come back to later in the
text.
The political situation and social relations under Russian rule were such that processing a
committee proposal for an act of child protection, including several disagreements
concerning the proper institutional form, was impossible. After the Declaration of
Independence (1917) and the following Civil War (1918) some important child legislation
was passed, like the Act of Illegitimate Children (1922), which solved some of the problems
partly replacing the missing Act of Child Protection.
References
Alanen, L., Shauli, H. & Strandel, H. (2004) Children and childhood in a welfare state: the case of
Finland, in Childhood in Aging Societies. Country Studies in Childrens Welfare and Everyday
Life , ed. A-M. Jensen, Norwegian Centre for Child Research, Trondheim.
Alingistindi (1966) Alingi, Reykjavk.
Andersson, G. (2000) Barnen i socialt arbete- en maktlos grupp?, in Socialt arbete En grundbok , eds
A. Meeuwisse, S. Sunesson & H. Sward, Natur och Kultur, Stockholm.
Antman, P. (1996) Valfardsprojektet Kunskap-Fakta Barn och Aldreomsorg i Tyskland och Sverige ,
Socialstyrelsen, Stockholm.
Anttonen, A. & Sipila, J. (2000) Suomalaista sosiaalipolitiikkaa , Vastapaino, Tampere.
Archard, D. (2002) Children Rights & Childhood , Routledge, London & New York.
Bardy, M., Salmi, M. & Heino, T. (2001) Mika lapsiamme uhkaa? Suuntaviivoja 2000-luvun
lapsipoliittiseen keskusteluun , Stakes, Helsinki.
Barnaret i Norden (1980) Nordiska ministerradets sekretariat, Oslo.
Barnaverndarlog nr. 80/2002.
Bartley, K. (1998) Child Policy and Childrens Rights , Department of Sociology, University of
Goteborg.
Bauman, Z. (1993) Modernity and Ambivalence , Polity Press, Cambridge.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage, London.
Beck, U. (1998) Democracy without Enemies , Polity Press, Cambridge.
Berggren Torell, V. (2004) Adults and children debating sexy girls clothes, in Beyond the Competent
Child. Exploring Contemporary Childhoods in the Nordic Welfare Societies , eds H. Brembeck,
B. Johansson & J. Kampmann, Roskilde University Press, Roskilde.
Bjornberg, U. (1992) Tvaforsorjarfamiljen i teori och verklighet, in Kvinnors och mans liv och
arbete , eds J. Acker, et al. , SNS, Stockholm.
Bradbury, B., Jenkins, S. P. & Micklewright, J. (eds) (2001) The Dynamics of Child Poverty in
Industrialised Countries , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brembeck, H., Johansson, B. & Kampmann, J. (eds) (2004) Beyond the Competent Child. Exploring
Contemporary Childhoods in the Nordic Welfare Societies , Roskilde University Press, Roskilde.
Broddadottir, I., Eydal, G., Hrafnsdottir, S. & Sigurdardottir, S. H. (1997) The development of local
authority social services in Iceland, in Social Care Services the Key to the Scandinavian Model ,
ed. J. Sipila, Avebury, Aldershot.
Buckingham, D. (2003) After the death of childhood, Efter barndomens dd? , Tidsskrift for Borne-&
Ungdomskultur, vol. 46, pp. 9 31.
Daniel, P. & Ivatts, J. (1998) Children and Social Policy, Palgrave, New York.
Dozelot, J. (1980) The Policing of Families: Welfare versus the State , Hutchinson, London.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism , Polity Press, Cambridge.
Eydal, G. B. (2000) Nordic childcare policies and the case of Iceland, in Families and Family Policies
in Europe *Comparative Perspectives , eds A. Pfenning & T. Bahle, Peter Lang, New York.
Eydal, G. B. (2004) Politiques de la petite enfance dans les pays nordiques, Lien social et Politiques
RIAC , vol. 50, pp. 165 184.
Forssen, K. (1998) Children, Families, and the Welfare State , Stakes, Helsinki.
Freysteinsdottir, F. J. (2005) Risk Factors for Repeated Child Maltreatment in Iceland: An Ecological
Approach , Haskolautgafan, Reykjavk.
Garland, D. (1985) Punishment and Welfare , Gower, England.
Garret, P. M. (2003) Remaking Social Work with Children and Families. A Critical Discussion on the
Modernisation of Social Care , Routledge, London & New York.
Harrikari, T. (2004a) From welfare policy towards risk politics?, in Beyond the Competent Child.
Exploring Contemporary Childhoods in the Nordic Welfare Societies , eds H. Brembeck, B.
Johansson & J. Kampmann, Roskilde University Press, Roskilde.
Harrikari, T. (2004b) Alaikaisyys ja rikollisuuden muuttuvat tulkinnat suomalaisessa lainsaatamiskaytannossa . PhD Thesis, Department of Social Sciences, University of Jyvaskyla,
Jyvaskyla.
Hestbk, A-D. (1998) Tvangsanbringelser i Norden- En komparative beskrivelse af de nordiske landes
lovgivning , Socialforskningsinstituttet, Kbenhavn.
Hirdman, Y. (1990) Att lagga livet tillratta *studier i svenska folkhemspolitik , Carlssons Bokforlag,
Stockholm.
James, A. & James, A. L. (2004) Constructing Childhood Theory Policy and Social Practice , Palgrave
Macmillan, Hampshire.
Jarventie, I. & Sauli, H. (eds) (2001) Eriarvoinen lapsuus , WSOY, Helsinki.
Julusdottir, S., Jonsson, F., Sigurardottir, N. & Gretarsson, S. J. (eds) (1995) Barnafjolskyldur.
Samfelag, lfsgildi- motun , Felagsmalarauneyti, Reykjavk.
Julkonen, I. & Harder, M. (2004) Fran prevention till repression? *trender I socialt arbete I
Norden, Nordisk socialt arbeid , vol. 24, pp. 34 48.
Kautto, M., Heikkila, M., Hvinden, B., Marklund, S. & Plough, N. (eds) (1999) Nordic Social Policy.
Changing Welfare States , Routledge, London.
Kjorholt, A. T. & Liden, H. (2004) Children and youth as citizens: symbolic participants or political
actors?, in Beyond the Competent Child. Exploring Contemporary Childhoods in the Nordic
Welfare Societies , eds H. Brembeck, B. Johansson & J. Kampmann, Roskilde University Press,
Roskilde.
Kristinsdottir, G. (1991) Child Welfare and Professionalization , University of Umea, Umea.
Kumlien, M. (1997) Uppfostran och straff. Studier kring 1902 ars lagstiftning om reaktioner mot
ungdomsbrott , Bloms, Lund.
Leira, A. (1987) Day-care for Children in Denmark, Norway and Sweden , Institutt for
samfunnsforskning, Oslo.
Leira, A. (1992) Welfare States and Working Mothers *The Scandinavian Experience , Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Leira, A. (1999) Cash-for-child care and daddy leave, in Parental Leave: Progress or Pitfall? Research
and Policy Issues in Europe , eds D. Moss & F. Deven, NIDI CBGS Publications, Brussels.
Leira, A. (2002) Updating the gender contract? Childcare reforms in the Nordic countries in the
1990s, Nora , vol. 10, pp. 81 89.
Log um umbosmann barna , nr. 83/1994.
Nordlund, A. (2003) Persistence and change *Nordic social policy in the 1980s and 1990s,
European Societies , vol. 5, pp. 69 90.
lafsson, S. (1999) Islenska leiin *Almannatryggingar og velfer fjoljolegum samanburi ,
.O
Tryggingarstofnun Rkisins, Reykjavk.
Olesen, J. (2004) Budget management of childhood, in Beyond the Competent Child. Exploring
Contemporary Childhoods in the Nordic Welfare Societies , eds H. Brembeck, B. Johansson & J.
Kampmann, Roskilde University Press, Roskilde.
Parton, N. (1991) Governing the Family: Child Care, Child Protection and the State , Macmillan,
London.
321
Pitkanen, P. & Kouki, S. (2002) Meeting foreign cultures: a survey of the attitudes of Finnish
authorities towards immigrants and immigration, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies ,
vol. 28, pp. 103 118.
Pringle, K. & Harder, M. (1999) Through Two Pairs of Eyes: A Comparative Study of Danish Social
Policy and Child Welfare , Aalborg University Press, Aalborg.
Prout, A. (2003) Participation, policy and the changing conditions of childhood, in Hearing the
Voices of Children. Social Policy for a New Century, eds C. Hallet & A. Prout, Routledge
Falmer, London & New York.
Pulma, P. (1987) Kerjuuluvasta perhekuntoutukseen, in Suomen lastensuojelun historia , eds J.
Pulma & Turpeinen, Lastensuojelun Keskusliitto, Helsinki.
Rayner, M. (2003) Citizen child: London childrens participation in the Office of Childrens Right
Commissioner, in Hearing the Voices of Children. Social Policy for a New Century, eds C.
Hallet & A. Prout, Routledge Falmer, London & New York.
Roberts, H. (2003) Childrens participation in policy matters, in Hearing the Voices of Children.
Social Policy for a New Century, eds C. Hallet & A. Prout, Routledge Falmer, London & New
York.
Ronsen, M. (1999) Assessing the impact of parental leave: effects on fertility and female
employment, in Parental Leave: Progress or Pitfall? Research and Policy Issues in Europe ,
eds D. Moss & F. Deven, NIDI CBGS Publications, Brussels.
Rostgaard, T. (2002) Setting time aside for the father *fathers leave in Scandinavia, Community
Work and Family, vol. 5, pp. 343 364.
Rostgaard, T., Christoffersen, M. N. & Weise, H. (1999) Parental leave in Denmark, in Parental
Leave: Progress or Pitfall? Research and Policy Issues in Europe , eds D. Moss & F. Deven, NIDI
CBGS Publications, Brussels.
Rostgaard, T. & Fridberg, T. (1998) Caring for Children and Older People *A Comparison of
European Policies and Practices. Social Security in Europe , 6, The Danish National Institute of
Social Research, Copenhagen.
Sainsbury, D. (ed.) (1994) Gendering the Welfare States , Sage, London.
Salmi, M. & Lammi-Taskula, J. (1999) Parental leave in Finland, in Parental Leave: Progress or
Pitfall? Research and Policy Issues in Europe , eds D. Moss & F. Deven, NIDI CBGS
Publications, Brussels.
Samningur Sameinuu joanna um rettindi barnsins , 18/1992.
Satka, M. (1994) Sosiaalinen tyo peraankatsojamiehesta hoivayrittajaksi, in Armeliaisuus,
yhteisoapu, sosiaaliturva. Suomalaisten sosiaalisen turvan historia , eds J. Pulma, M. Satka &
K. Urponen, Sosiaaliturvan Keskusliitto, Helsinki.
Satka, M. (2003) Finnish conceptions of children and the history of child welfare, in Hearing the
Voices of Children: Social Policy for a New Century, eds C. Hallet & A. Prout, Falmer Press,
London.
Sipila, J. (ed.) (1997) Social Care Services: The Key to the Scandinavian Welfare Mode l , Ashgate,
Aldershot.
Skevik, A. (2003) Children of the welfare state: individuals with entitlements, or hidden in the
family?, Journal of Social Policy, vol. 32, pp. 423 440.
Skolverket (2003) Pressmeddelande 2003-03-03 Efter maxtaxreformen *Fler barn i forskolan men
oforandrade gruppstorlekar, Skolverket, Stockholm.
Social Protection in the Nordic Countries 2002 Scope, Expenditure and Financing (2004) Nordic
Social-Statistical Committee, Copenhagen.
Stang Dahl, T. (1985) Child Welfare and Social Defence , Norwegian University Press, Oslo.
The Danish Ministry of Social Affairs (1998) The Ministry of Social Affairs Executive Order No. 2 of 5
January 1998 , Ministry of Social Affairs, Copenhagen.
Therborn, G. (1993) The politics of childhood: the rights of children in modern times, in Families
of Nations. Patterns of Public Policy in Western Democracies , ed. F. Castles, Dartmouth,
Aldershot.
Thomas, N. (2000) Children, Family and the State. Decision-making and Child Participation ,
Macmillan, London.
Valimaki, A-L. & Rauhala, P-L. (2000) Lasten paivahoidon taipuminen yhteiskunnallisiin
murroksiin Suomessa, Yhteiskuntapolitiikka , vol. 65, pp. 387 405.
Vleminckx, K. & Smeeding, T. M. (eds) (2001) Child Well Being, Child Poverty and Child Policy in
Modern Nations: What Do We Know? , Policy Press, Bristol.
Wennemo, I. (1994) Sharing the Costs of Children. Studies in the Development of Family Support in
the OECD Countries , Swedish Institute for Social Research, Stockholm.

Social Work and Nordic Welfare Policies For Children

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Social Work and Nordic Welfare Policies For Children

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This article was downloaded by: [Tata Institute of Social Sciences]

On: 31 August 2012, At: 08:54

European Journal of Social Work