Top Tutors
The team is composed solely of exceptionally skilled graduate writers, each possessing specialized knowledge in specific subject areas and extensive expertise in academic writing.
Order for this Paper or Similar Assignment Writing Help
Click to fill the order details form in a few minute.
Posted: March 13th, 2024
SOCI6046 – International Social Policy case study
SOCI6046 – International Social Policy
Guidance for plan and two country case study
2023/4
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%).
The case study: content (3500 words)
Option a) You have chosen two countries with similar social policies/welfare regimes, but different levels of human well-being based on one or more of the measures considered in the module.
Option b) You have chosen two countries with different social polies/welfare regimes, but a similar level of human well-being based on one or more of the measures considered in the module
Your aim is to explain the puzzle. Why are there differences (a) or similarities (b). Under either option it might be that levels of human well-being vary depending on which measure is used. If this is the case, this would form part of the puzzle you need to explain.
What role do social policies/welfare regimes play for human welfare?
What other factors matter?
The Plan (500 words)
To prepare for this case study and so we can give you feedback on your ideas you will be asked to complete a 500-word plan of the case study well before final submission of the final assessment (bibliography and title are excluded from the word count). The plan will outline a) your selection of countries and a justification based on the welfare regime literature
b) your conceptualisation and measurement of human well-being with a justification
c) your data sources and an explanation for their usefulness
d) your academic sources guiding your choice of countries
Each dimension (a-d) will be marked (see document about marking criteria for plan)
Guidance about preparing your case study
You will be asked during the seminars to think about on which two countries you wish to focus. These countries should either have similar levels of human wellbeing based on one or more conceptualisation (e.g. need, capabilities, subjective well-being, sessions 2-5) but different types of welfare states (for example a strong and a weak one, sessions 7-10); or they will have different levels of human well-being, but the same type of welfare state. The aim of your case study is to explore why this might be – what role does the welfare state play for well-being? What other factors matter?
Your case study will assess your two chosen countries and their welfare states in detail, on the basis of the available data and literature presented in this module. We will remind you of the main task in each session, so you can consider its relevance for your case study. This will help you prepare the plan (the first assessment), on the basis of which you will have feedback for your full case study.
In sessions 2 to 5 we will discuss different conceptualisations and measures of well-being, and you will be asked to think about the extent to which these might be affected by the different welfare state arrangements we will cover in sessions 7-10.
Expectations and criteria
This assignment is designed to encourage you to develop your conceptual knowledge and research skills. Your aim should be to reach a plausible judgement about the performance and success of your chosen societies based on the criteria discussed in the first part of the module and on the role social policies have played in achieving them discussed in the second part. This will involve you engaging critically with the data you consult.
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.
1) How robust is your puzzle?
• How well have you justified how your countries fit specific welfare state regimes? Have you used relevant literature? (in relation to option a and b in the guidance)
• Have you justified with plausible data the level of human well-being in your chosen countries?
2) How well have you explained your conceptualisation of wellbeing?
• How well have you used the literature covered in the module to explain this conceptualisation?
• Are you using one conceptualisation or more? If the latter, have you explained why?
• Have you explained how your conceptualisation of wellbeing relates to the measures and data you are using?
3) How well have you explained your puzzle?
Why do your two countries with similar welfare state regimes produce different levels of human well-being?
OR
Why do your two countries with different welfare state regimes produce similar levels of human well-being?
• How focused is your answer? How does it relate to your puzzle?
• How well is your answer grounded in relevant literature?
• How well is your answer grounded in other relevant sources of information?
4) Presentation
• Accuracy of referencing (list of references and in-text referencing)
• Precision of writing
• Coherence of text – does it have an introduction, conclusion, is there internal coherence?
• Accuracy of grammar, spelling, sentence structure
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
Study Notes & Homework Samples: Compare and contrast organization effectiveness and health efficiency »Nursing Informaticists interacting with staff nursesNurse Informaticists Collaboration