By Max Tallberg<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In my first text<\/a> dealing with the welfare society, I explained what defines a welfare society. In my second text<\/a> on the topic, I highlighted reasons to support the Nordic welfare state, in which the welfare state plays a larger role than elsewhere. In this third text on the welfare state, I set out to explain why it functions so well as a model. I approach this topic in this text primarily from a societal level. At the same time, I reflect on the welfare state in light of the core values of our association, namely equality and justice. In the fourth blog post on the topic, I will, in turn, highlight why the welfare state works from the individual’s perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the general prerequisites for a functioning society is a functioning economy. When considering the welfare state from a societal level, this theme cannot be overlooked. However, the economy and its maximum growth should not be seen as an end in itself, but as a means to improve individuals’ personal and collective well-being. Thus, instead of aiming to maximize wealth in the economy, we should pay more attention to how that wealth is distributed so that everyone can use it to build a good life <\/strong>for themselves and, at the very least, meet the basic conditions for a dignified life. A reflection on equality, which has also been raised in our previous texts, provides a particularly good perspective on this question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When examining individuals and their wealth, it has been observed that wealth levels also accurately reflect well-being, especially at the extremes of wealth distribution. For example, it has been found that individuals from poor families attain lower levels of education and more often remain entirely outside of education. In addition, poverty affects health, length of life, self-realization or its opposite\u2014tedious drudgery\u2014as well as, more broadly, happiness or its absence. Conversely, if a person has more money, this is reflected, for example, in higher levels of education and the ability to afford better housing, food, and hobbies. In addition, the wealthy are healthier and, to some extent, experience greater happiness. Thus, it is clear that the unequal distribution of wealth causes suffering among those who have the least<\/strong>. By removing the extremes\u2014or at least narrowing them\u2014it could also be argued that the collective well-being prevailing in the whole society would increase to the greatest possible extent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, well-being is ultimately a subjective experience, and money is not always the best measure of it. The best way to measure well-being is therefore to ask the individual directly. The challenge here, however, is that the individual does not always precisely know what their own well-being consists of. Human relationships have nevertheless been found to play a major role in this. It has also been observed that individuals\u2019 needs are ultimately always connected to the community and to the values that prevail there. Money thus primarily reflects only an individual\u2019s consumption possibilities, and not what is genuinely important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It has also been observed that the material requirements of many people are ultimately relatively modest. For many, healthy food, suitable clothing, and proper housing are sufficient. Thus, it can be argued that contemporary societies, in emphasizing consumption, focus on the wrong things: a large part of what is consumed does not actually increase people\u2019s well-being, while overconsumption has created an existential threat to humanity in the form of climate change and biodiversity loss. Unfortunately, however, modern marketing, as well as a lack of information or dependency, creates needs that are not truly important. It has been observed that the drive for greater consumption or acquiring more money is often based on a desire to stand out from others, rather than a desire to improve one\u2019s own or one\u2019s loved ones\u2019 well-being. This, too, gives reason to emphasize human sociality and the importance of the individual\u2019s relationship with their community. Instead of emphasizing oneself, one should rather emphasize belonging and thus also focus on what we have in common.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Considering all this information, it is appropriate to reiterate that contemporary societies should promote equality, both in economic terms and otherwise. Instead of maximizing individual wealth and consumption, we should move toward a society in which everyone\u2019s basic needs are met, and community plays a fundamental role. Even if this does not maximize the size of the economy, it would achieve the highest possible level of collective well-being. It has also been observed that stress and violence increase with the lack of community. The culture of individualism, which is currently prevalent, especially in many Western countries, also has the harmful effect of leading individuals to believe they are to blame for their problems, even though the situation is often much more complex. Human problems are often connected to one\u2019s relationships with others, and solutions are often found there as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to equality, reciprocity and the related concept of justice have also been central values behind the Nordic welfare state. It has been thought that everyone should participate in building society and its well-being according to their abilities. At the same time, everyone should be given support in accordance with their individual needs<\/strong>. In this way, everyone is offered the opportunity to foster well-being and to receive support. The distribution of wealth and money is also strongly connected to the concept of reciprocity: if poor individuals perceive their position as unjust or their level of wealth as unreasonably low compared to others, this increases their ill-being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice is also a central value associated with the welfare state, in that decision-making perceived as just is positively related to individuals’ health, as well as to fewer sick days and lower psychological strain. Conversely, experiencing injustice leads to feelings of uncertainty and increased stress. In addition, the individual experiences negative emotions and even depression in such a situation. Justice also includes reciprocity in the sense that everyone is expected to work for the common good, and free riders are often viewed unfavorably. It has therefore been suggested that in a good society, people voluntarily take responsibility for one another. However, this also requires institutions and an order that enables such action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps the most central observation about money and society is whether an individual from a disadvantaged background can genuinely improve their position. If the social position defined at birth determines an individual\u2019s future, one cannot speak of a just society<\/strong>. When speaking of an exclusive society, one refers to societal institutions that are designed to serve elites. Examples include tax advantages for the wealthy, barriers to accessing education, obstacles to attaining positions of power, differences in consumption, and residential segregation. In such a society, economic and political power is concentrated in a small group of actors, who, in turn, decide to whom they transfer it. Thus, an individual born into poverty cannot genuinely improve their position in such a society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An inclusive society, in turn, is one in which every individual, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to be educated and to rise to a position that corresponds to their abilities. In such a society, equality of opportunity is pursued, and the education and work experience an individual acquires are valued. It is essential that, in such a society, everyone is guaranteed access to high-quality education and healthcare. It has also been observed that in societies where fair and just systems prevail, individuals themselves grow to value justice and fairness. Thus, these phenomena can also be seen as reinforcing one another. It is also clear that the societal system of a functioning welfare state should be inclusive. It can also be argued that in a society and world where everyone has a genuine opportunity to build a meaningful life, collective well-being\u2014and even the well-being of elites\u2014would increase to the greatest possible extent. At the same time, such a society and world would be highly functional in many other respects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In relation to the welfare state, we have also seen that, in addition to equality, justice is a central component of the welfare state and its institutions. If people perceive societal institutions as unjust, this is widely reflected throughout society and renders it dysfunctional. Reciprocity, as I have already brought forward in this text, is also central to this, as are impartiality and the principle that those who are unable to care for themselves are taken care of. A functioning welfare state, however, is also able to assess what constitutes a good life for the individual and how to make it possible. This is the theme of the next blog.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sources: <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Max Tallberg In my first text dealing with the welfare society, I explained what defines a welfare society. In my second text on the topic, I highlighted reasons to support the Nordic welfare state, in which the welfare state plays a larger role than elsewhere. In this third text on the welfare state, I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5301","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-blog","entry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5301","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5301"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5301\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5312,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5301\/revisions\/5312"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5301"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5301"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5301"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The Relationship between Wealth and Well-being<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Equality, Reciprocity and Justice<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
An Inclusive and Equal Society<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hiilamo, Heikki.\u00a0Uusi hyvinvointivaltio<\/em>. Into Kustannus, 2011, Helsinki
Partanen, A. (2016)\u00a0The Nordic Theory of Everything: In Search of a Better Life<\/em>. First edition. New York, NY: Harper, an imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers.
Saari, Juho (2009)\u00a0Hyvinvointivaltio: Suomen mallia analysoimassa<\/em>. 3rd ed. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Yeung, A. B. & Saari, J. (2007)\u00a0Oikeudenmukaisuus hyvinvointivaltiossa<\/em>. Edited by Juho Saari & Anne Birgitta Yeung. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n