Arthur Gould, Developments in Swedish Social Policy: Resisting Dionysus. - book review

Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, March, 2003 by James Midgley

New York: Palgrave, 2001. $62.00 hardcover, Michel Peillon, Welfare in Ireland: Actors, Resources and Strategies. Westport, CT: Praegar, 2001. $62.50 hardcover.

Scholarly inquiry into the social welfare systems of different countries has become increasingly sophisticated in recent decades. When social policy scholars first began to engage systematically in comparative social welfare inquiry about half a century ago, much of the research was descriptive, and numerous country case studies focusing mainly on the Western industrial nations were published. Usually, the welfare systems of Britain, the United States, Sweden and other European countries were described and attempts were made to draw comparisons between them. Efforts were also made to formulate methodologically rigorous rules for comparison. Occasionally, `outlier' countries would be included in these studies and, in time, the focus expanded to include regions beyond the usual North America-European axis, such as Latin America.

While the country case study format has remained central to comparative social welfare research, another approach, which was less descriptive, also emerged. This approach drew on illustrative examples from different countries and regions to illuminate particular issues, arguments and propositions. While this approach became popular, it drew criticism from the purists who argued that serious comparative inquiry should not be based on the haphazard use of comparative material. Nor, they claimed, should international evidence be used to bolster particular points of view. They insist that it is only through detailed descriptive accounts that rigorous comparisons and valid generalizations can be formulated. This point of view was countered by the argument that descriptive country case studies were atheoretical, frequently out of date, and frankly boring. Some believed that country case studies were becoming obsolete and that they would soon be abandoned.

However, as the two books reviewed here reveal, the country case study format has not been abandoned. Indeed, the literature on the welfare' systems of different countries has grown rapidly and today, much more is known about the way social welfare policies and programs are implemented in the world's different nations. Similarly, country case studies can transcend description by applying theoretical constructs in a more interesting way to frame and interpret domestic realities. Indeed, the two books reviewed here make extensive use of theory to frame their accounts. Their use of theory offers fascinating insights into the way comparative social welfare inquiry is today emphasizing the role of culture, traditions and institutions in analyzing the factors responsible for the origins, historical development and current features of welfare systems.

Arthur Gould focuses on Sweden, a country he has previously included in a major comparative study of Europe and Japan. Gould is extremely knowledgeable about the Swedish welfare system and his book is of particular value because it provides an update of recent changes arising from growing pressures for retrenchment. Although the issue of welfare retrenchment in Sweden has already been discussed extensively in the comparative literature, accounts of developments in Sweden emanating from Britain and North America have tended to focus on electoral factors, the growing pressures for economic competitiveness and taxpayer fatigue. Gould's account is much more sophisticated suggesting that the pressures for change are inextricably linked to wider postmodernist forces which are challenging the country's highly structured, modernist welfare system. The result is a more fragmented, ambiguous and decentralized welfare system in which pluralism and self-determination is celebrated. Faced with these forces, the Swedish welfare system has experienced significant pressures to reduce costs, retrench services and modify long standing commitments.

However, Gould argues that the Swedes have resisted and, despite the changes which have taken place, the Swedish welfare system remains intact. It also continues to serve as an exemplar of an ideal-typical modernist welfare state. But contrary to popular wisdom, Gould does not attribute the survival of the Swedish welfare state to the persistence of social democracy or class struggle, but rather to Swedish culture which deeply values order, structure, rationality and other modernist values. Drawing on the culture of personality theories which were popular in academic circles in the mid-20th century, and particularly on Ruth Benedict's Apollonian-Dionysian dichotomy, Gould contends that the Apollonian features of Swedish life are so institutionalized that they will continue to ensure the long term survival of the Swedish welfare state, which it is itself a cultural artifact of this culture. Gould does not entirely approve of the continuation of these Apollonian tendencies which reveal an obsession with control and a paternalistic need to order people's lives. Echoing Lyotard's condemnation of modernity, he points out that Swedish governments in the past engaged in dubious practices resulting from a misguided but culturally determined paternalism.