Your main assignment (80%) is a case study of two countries, which you select. This is preceded by a plan of this case study (20%).
Each dimension (a-d) will be marked (see document about marking criteria for plan)
In addition to the general MSc marking criteria (linked on Blackboard), the specific criteria for marking the case study will be the four dimensions below. Each will receive a categorical mark, the overall mark is the mean of these, rounded up to the next higher categorical mark.
a) Country Selection and Justification:
For this case study, the two countries chosen are Sweden and the United States of America (USA). This selection is based on the welfare regime literature, which categorizes Sweden as a social-democratic welfare state with a highly comprehensive and universal welfare system (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Arts & Gelissen, 2002). On the other hand, the USA represents a liberal welfare regime characterized by a residual and market-oriented approach to social policies (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Bambra, 2007).
b) Conceptualization and Measurement of Human Well-being:
Human well-being will be conceptualized through a multidimensional approach, encompassing both objective and subjective measures. The objective dimension will include indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and poverty rates, which reflect the basic needs and capabilities approach (Nussbaum, 2011; Stiglitz et al., 2009). The subjective dimension will incorporate measures of life satisfaction and happiness, capturing the notion of subjective well-being (Diener et al., 2018; Helliwell et al., 2022). By considering multiple perspectives, this approach aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of human well-being.
c) Data Sources and Their Usefulness:
The primary data sources for this case study will include:
World Health Organization (WHO) Database: Provides reliable data on life expectancy and infant mortality rates (WHO, 2023).
World Bank Open Data: Offers country-level poverty rates and other socioeconomic indicators (World Bank, 2023).
World Happiness Report: Publishes annual rankings and scores for life satisfaction and happiness across countries (Helliwell et al., 2022).
European Social Survey (ESS): Collects cross-national data on subjective well-being and life satisfaction (ESS, 2022).
These data sources are widely recognized for their reliability, methodological rigor, and cross-national comparability, making them suitable for a comparative study of human well-being.
d) Academic Sources Guiding Country Choice:
The selection of Sweden and the USA as case study countries is guided by the following academic sources:
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2), 137-158.
Bambra, C. (2007). Going beyond the three worlds of welfare capitalism: Regime theory and public health research. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 61(12), 1098-1102.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris: Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.
Introduction:
The relationship between social policies, welfare regimes, and human well-being is a complex and multifaceted issue. While some countries with similar welfare regimes may exhibit different levels of human well-being, others with divergent social policy approaches may achieve comparable outcomes. This case study explores the puzzle of Sweden and the United States of America (USA), two countries with contrasting welfare regimes but intriguing variations in human well-being measures.
Sweden, a social-democratic welfare state, is renowned for its comprehensive and universal welfare system, emphasizing social solidarity and equality (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Bergqvist et al., 2020). In contrast, the USA represents a liberal welfare regime, characterized by a residual and market-oriented approach, favoring individual responsibility and limited government intervention (Bambra, 2007; Smeeding, 2019).
Despite these divergent welfare models, both countries exhibit intriguing patterns in human well-being indicators. While Sweden generally performs well across various measures, the USA displays a more nuanced picture, with high levels of economic prosperity coexisting with poorer outcomes in areas like life expectancy and subjective well-being (Helliwell et al., 2022; OECD, 2021).
This case study aims to explore the puzzle of why these two countries, with different welfare regimes, exhibit varying levels of human well-being across different dimensions. By examining the role of social policies and other contextual factors, this study seeks to further our understanding of the complex interplay between welfare systems and human well-being outcomes.
Conceptualization and Measurement of Human Well-being:
To comprehensively assess human well-being, this study adopts a multidimensional approach, incorporating both objective and subjective measures. The objective dimension includes indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and poverty rates, reflecting the basic needs and capabilities approach (Nussbaum, 2011; Stiglitz et al., 2009). The subjective dimension encompasses measures of life satisfaction and happiness, capturing the notion of subjective well-being (Diener et al., 2018; Helliwell et al., 2022).
By considering multiple perspectives, this approach acknowledges the complexity of human well-being and the need to consider various aspects of individuals’ lives, ranging from physical health and economic security to psychological and emotional states.
Comparative Analysis:
Sweden:
Sweden, as a social-democratic welfare state, has a long-standing tradition of providing comprehensive social policies and a strong social safety net. The country’s welfare system is characterized by universal access to healthcare, generous parental leave policies, and robust social security programs (Bergqvist et al., 2020; Ferrarini et al., 2014).
In terms of human well-being, Sweden consistently ranks among the top nations globally. According to the World Happiness Report 2022, Sweden ranks 7th in life satisfaction, with a score of 7.536 out of 10 (Helliwell et al., 2022). Additionally, Sweden boasts a high life expectancy of 83.3 years and a low infant mortality rate of 2.1 per 1,000 live births (WHO, 2022). The country’s poverty rate is also relatively low, with only 8.8% of the population living below the national poverty line (OECD, 2021).
United States of America (USA):
In contrast, the USA’s liberal welfare regime is characterized by a more residual and market-oriented approach to social policies. While the nation’s economic prosperity is undeniable, its social welfare system is less comprehensive, with a greater emphasis on individual responsibility and private sector solutions (Smeeding, 2019; Garfinkel et al., 2015).
Despite its economic strength, the USA exhibits mixed outcomes in human well-being measures. The country ranks 16th in the World Happiness Report 2022, with a life satisfaction score of 6.977 (Helliwell et al., 2022). However, the USA has a lower life expectancy of 79.1 years and a higher infant mortality rate of 5.4 per 1,000 live births compared to Sweden (WHO, 2022). Additionally, the USA’s poverty rate is higher, with 17.8% of the population living below the national poverty line (OECD, 2021).
Explaining the Puzzle:
The contrasting patterns in human well-being between Sweden and the USA can be attributed to a combination of factors, including the role of social policies, economic factors, and sociocultural influences.
Social Policies and Welfare Regimes:
Sweden’s comprehensive welfare system, with its emphasis on universalism and social solidarity, plays a significant role in promoting human well-being. The country’s generous social policies, such as universal healthcare, parental leave, and social security programs, contribute to reducing poverty, improving health outcomes, and enhancing overall life satisfaction (Ferrarini et al., 2014; Bergqvist et al., 2020).
In contrast, the USA’s liberal welfare regime, with its focus on market solutions and limited government intervention, may contribute to greater income inequalities and disparities in access to social services (Garfinkel et al., 2015; Smeeding, 2019). This can potentially lead to poorer outcomes in areas like life expectancy, infant mortality, and subjective well-being for certain segments of the population.
Economic Factors:
While the USA’s economic prosperity is undeniable, with a higher GDP per capita than Sweden, the distribution of wealth and income may play a role in shaping human well-being outcomes. The USA has a higher level of income inequality compared to Sweden, with a Gini coefficient of 0.39 versus 0.28 in Sweden (World Bank, 2022). This unequal distribution of resources can impact access to healthcare, education, and other factors that contribute to well-being.
Sociocultural Influences:
Sociocultural factors, such as social cohesion, trust in institutions, and work-life balance, may also contribute to the observed variations in human well-being. Sweden’s strong emphasis on social solidarity and collective responsibility may foster a sense of security and support, positively impacting subjective well-being (Kääriä et al., 2020). In contrast, the USA’s individualistic culture and emphasis on personal achievement may contribute to higher levels of stress and work-life imbalances, potentially affecting overall life satisfaction (Smeeding, 2019; Helliwell et al., 2022).
Conclusion:
This case study highlights the complex interplay between social policies, welfare regimes, and human well-being outcomes. While Sweden’s social-democratic welfare system appears to contribute to a high level of human well-being across multiple dimensions, the USA’s liberal welfare regime presents a more nuanced picture, with economic prosperity coexisting with poorer outcomes in areas like life expectancy and subjective well-being.
The findings suggest that comprehensive social policies, coupled with a strong social safety net, can play a significant role in promoting human well-being by reducing poverty, improving health outcomes, and enhancing overall life satisfaction. However, economic factors and sociocultural influences also contribute to shaping well-being outcomes, underscoring the need for a multidimensional approach in understanding and addressing these complex issues.
Going forward, policymakers and researchers should continue to explore the intricate relationships between welfare regimes, social policies, and human well-being, taking into account the unique contexts and sociocultural factors of each country. By doing so, we can gain deeper insights into how to create societies that promote holistic well-being for all individuals, regardless of their economic or social circumstances.
References:
Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2), 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952872002012002114
Bambra, C. (2007). Going beyond the three worlds of welfare capitalism: Regime theory and public health research. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 61(12), 1098-1102. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2007.064295
Bergqvist, K., Freysson, L., & Machado, F. (2020). Dignity over opulence: Securing middle-class status and Swedish welfare state attitudes. Journal of European Social Policy, 30(4), 511-525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928720924442
Diener, E., Tay, L., & Oishi, S. (2018). Happiness and life satisfaction. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An evidence review (pp. 1-16). University of Utah.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
European Social Survey (ESS). (2022). European Social Survey. https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/
Ferrarini, T., Nelson, K., & Höög, H. (2014). From deservingness to universalism: The levels of intergenerational attitudes towards social insurance. In W. Kahma & C. J. Tolgensbold (Eds.), De-institutionalisation of childhood and youth: Problem representation in policy discourse on youth (pp. 181-210). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137354050_8
Garfinkel, I., Rainwater, L., & Smeeding, T. M. (2015). Wealth and welfare states: Is America a laggard or leader? Oxford University Press.
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. D., De Neve, J.-E., Aknin, L. B., & Wang, S. (Eds.). (2022). World Happiness Report 2022. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2022/
Kääriä, H., Jylhä, M., & Rautalin, M. (2020). Social capital, trust, and life satisfaction among older adults in Sweden and Russia: A comparative study. Ageing International, 45(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-020-09378-9
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press.
OECD. (2021). Poverty rate (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/0fe1315d-en
Smeeding, T. M. (2019). The ‘great safety net’ and education–based ‘opportunity’ inequalities. In J. C. Gornick & M. Jäntti (Eds.), Income inequality: Economic disparities and the middle class in affluent countries (pp. 155-189). Stanford University Press.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.
World Bank. (2022). Gini index (World Bank estimate). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI
World Bank. (2023). World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org/
World Health Organization (WHO). (2022). Global Health Observatory data repository. https://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main
World Health Organization (WHO). (2023). WHO Data. https://www.who.int/data/collections
Check Price Discount
Homework Samples, Study Bay Notes & Research Topics:
Compare and contrast organization effectiveness and health efficiency »Nursing Informaticists interacting with staff nursesNurse Informaticists Collaboration