Приглашение на семинар "Nordic welfare model and social innovations – comparative perspective" в Институт Финляндии в СПб / 5.10.2016

В рамках фестиваля Недели Северных стран, Институт Финляндии в Санкт-Петербурге  проводит академический семинар "Nordic welfare model and social innovations – comparative perspective".Семинар состоится 5.10.2016 с 12-18.00 по адресу: Б. Конюшенная 8, Дом Финляндии.
Рабочий язык - английский.

Предварительная регистрация до 5.10. до 10.00 по эл. почте  mika.pylsy@instfin.ru, или по телефону 606-65-65

Nordic welfare model and social innovations – comparative perspective

St. Petersburg, 5 October 2016

Speakers and their presentations

 

Markku Kivinen

Ph.D Markku Kivinen is one of the leading social theorists in Russian studies and has been the director of the Aleksanteri Institute – the Finnish Centre for Russian and Eastern European Studies – since 1996. Kivinen’s scientific merits are sixfold:

  1. He is a broad generalist in Russian studies and has original contributions both in theory and in empirical research.

  2. He has 15 years of experience leading a multidisciplinary research community, promoting interdisciplinary and multi-positional approaches.

  3. He has long-term experience in academic teaching, as well as in supervision of dissertations.

  4. He has profound experience in project management in many undertakings funded by e.g. the Academy of Finland, the European Union, or various Nordic funds.

  5. He has acquired an exceptional experience in institution building. During his leadership the Aleksanteri Institute has become a dynamic research community and one of the largest research institutes in Russian studies in Western Europe. He has led several ground-breaking projects and has directed the graduate school, with more than 90 PhD students in all. During his years as professor at the University of Lapland, he created the Department of Sociology and started a successful graduate school in this field in Northern Finland.

  6. Finally, Markku Kivinen has a wide experience in societal impact both nationally and internationally. The media has interviewed him hundreds of times and he has been invited to give his views as a keynote speaker on prominent international forums, not only in Finland and Russia but also in the U.S., Japan, China and elsewhere.

 

Presentation

 

Introduction to the new challenge and to the new theoretical approach

The comparative social policy literature has produced several well-known distinctive ideal typical models of welfare regimes in particular regions, specifically Europe (OECD), contemporary East Asia, and Africa. In the tradition of welfare research, the general assumption is that a democratic society forms the precondition for the development of a welfare state, and the legitimacy of democracy is constantly affirmed by the growth of welfare. In his path-breaking comparative analyses of European and Anglo-Saxon countries, Esping-Andersen (1990) distinguished three ideal-type welfare state regimes in the democratic OECD world, which he labelled as liberal, conservative and social democratic (see also Korpi, 1983). Esping-Andersen, as well as many of his followers, adhered to the political school of welfare studies, highlighting the crucial impact of political resources on social welfare policy. New theoretical models and concepts have been introduced recently for non-Western context. For instance, Rudra (2008) conceptualises the welfare regime paradigms productivist for East Asia and protectivist for South Asia. Wood and Gough (2006) proposed the concepts of informal security regimes to describe institutional arrangements in developing states where people rely heavily on community and family relationships to meet their human security needs. They also distinguished insecurity regimes, which perpetuate gross insecurity; shadow states in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, fall in this last category.

The post World War II communist welfare regimes were distinct from any of these paradigms. Basic welfare was relatively comprehensive and secure, yet determined by the state rather than democratic politics. Furthermore, unlike in other regions, welfare provision was concentrated mainly at the state-owned enterprise level. The Soviet welfare policy was constructed on two pillars: Firstly, the state provided non-monetary social benefits for particular social groups. Secondly, most social benefits and services were based on work and distributed at the enterprise level. Both of these old pillars are vanishing in the contemporary market system. Gough and Therborn (2010) categorized post-socialist states as proto-welfare states that have superior welfare outcomes in the context of the non-OECD world.

Russia’s transition from a socialist system to a market economy resulted in an exceptionally dramatic social crisis: increases in poverty, inequality, and mortality are its indicators. In the centre of the so-called post-socialist welfare crisis is the severe demographic crisis that Russia has faced: a low birth rate combined with a low life expectancy – especially of Russian men – led to unequalled depopulation of 700,000 people per year at its worst. This is a far more severe population decline than in any other industrialized country in peacetime. In the year 1990, the total fertility rate was 1.89 per woman, whereas in 1999 it was as low as 1.17 (Rivkin-Fish, 2010, 709). The life-expectancy of Russian men reached as low as 57 years in 1994 (Kainu et al., forthcoming).

Such an explosion of well-being problems has been accompanied by the simultaneous demolition of the previously state-led welfare system. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, Russian welfare underwent large processes of liberalisation, privatisation, and decentralisation in the 1990s, which often produced poorly implemented reforms (Cook 2007). A shift back to a more interventionist role for the Russian federal state in welfare policy took place in the 2000s, under President Putin, when social policy was promoted as one of the government’s top priorities at all governmental levels (Cook, 2011; Kulmala, 2013), precisely because of the alarming demographic situation.

One can ask how do such policies come about? Explanatory theories of social welfare have traditionally been divided into either actor-based (conflict) or structural (functional) theories (Aspalter, 2006;). Crucial to my new theory is Anthony Giddens’ idea of structuration and the “duality of structure”. The constitution of agents and structures are not two independently existing phenomena. In order to develop our research setting more concretely we have to operationalize the various aspects of structuration for different areas of social policy. This can be done by creating middle range theoretical concepts and by advancing via specified hypotheses. We have to specify both the agency and structure in each field of policy making and ask how the system is facing the three basic structuration problems detailed above: matching rules and resources, relating formal and informal institutions and reflecting on intended and unintended results of policies.

 

 

Meri Kulmala

 

Dr. Soc.Sc., MA Meri Kulmala is an Academy of Finland Postdoctoral Researcher. She works at the Aleksanteri Institute of University of Helsinki under the auspices of the Finnish Center of Excellence in Russian Studies. Her major research interests are welfare policy, family policy in particular, civil society development, state-society relationship and gender relations in post-Soviet Russia.

 

Currently she leads an international and multidisciplinary research project “A Child’s Right to a Family: Deinstitutionalization of Child Welfare in Putin’s Russia” (http://blogs.helsinki.fi/childwelfare/) funded by the University of Helsinki, Academy of Finland and Kone Foundation. The project investigates the on-going child welfare reform in Russia, which strives to dismantle the massive system of children homes by promoting domestic adoptions, developing foster family system and creating preventive support services for families.

 

She has published internationally; her latest article “Post-Soviet “Political”? “Social” and “Political” in the Work of Russian Socially-oriented CSOs” was published in Demokratizatsiya: The journal of Post-Soviet Democratization in spring 2016.

 

Presentation:

 

Current Trends of Russian Family and Child Welfare Policies - Similarities and Differences in International Perspective

 

In Putin’s Russia, starting from the early 2000s, a strong family-centered ideology has characterized the policy programs. A new conservative protection of the family has served as a key task for the Russian government. After the wide liberalization of the welfare state in the 1990s, a shift back to state-led social policy took place in the 2000s. A closer scrutiny, though, shows that this statist turn mainly concerned only certain prioritized groups, such as families with reproductive potential. The government has introduced several policy measures to augment the birth rate in the country in the middle of severe demographic crisis. These measures have ranged from various monetary benefits to support for work-family balancing to Russian mothers.

 

The Putin-era family policy in Russia has been pronatalist and unquestionably focused on the young heterosexual nuclear families and their potential children. From 2010 though, the Russian government has made new openings that turn attention to so-called disadvantaged families and vulnerable children, especially those left without parental care. As a result, Russia is now under-going a major child welfare reform, which builds on the idea of every child’s right to grow up in a family. The reform strives to dismantle the massive system of children homes in the country by promoting domestic adoptions, developing foster family system and creating support services for families to prevent “social orphanhood”.

 

The paper looks at the key trends in Russian family policy in the context of Putin’s Russia – yet, putting them into a wider global context through discussing the prevailing ideologies and possible motivations behind those ideological choices that guide the decision-making in Russian family policy.

 

 

 

Simo Mannila

 

Dr Simo Mannila is Senior Expert of International Affairs at the Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL). He has been working in this position since 2003, with the tasks of planning, preparing and leading projects and working as a short term expert. He has worked in several countries e.g. the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Romania, Mongolia, Kosovo and Serbia. Presently he leads EU Twinning Project Support to Gender Equality in the Republic of Croatia (2016-17) and he is Project Board Member and short-term expert in Capacity Building in Social Sphere in Kyrgyz Republic (2015-16). Dr Mannila is Adjunct Professor in Sociology at the University of Helsinki since 1995 and Adjunct Professor in Social Policy at the University of Turku since 2009. His substantial expertise is mainly from the fields of social inclusion and poverty, equality policy, anti-discrimination, migration and ethnic minorities, disability and labour market vulnerability. Dr Mannila is Board Member of the Aleksanteri Institute of the University of Helsinki. He is member of the Centre of Excellence in Russian Studies, and belongs to the Planning Group for Ukrainian Studies of the Aleksanteri Institute of the University of Helsinki.

 

Presentation

EQUALITY IS GOOD FOR ALL - SOME EXAMPLES OF FINNISH GOOD PRACTICE

According to the scientific classification of social policy regimes by Esping-Andersen (1990), Finland is defined as a Nordic country with universal rights for all permanent residents, strong emphasis on equality and a high degree of decentralization. In the Nordic regime social policy is designed for all, which is also well recognized by the population - social policies and tax funding enjoy a very high popular support in the whole society. Social benefits and services are not targeted on some vulnerabilities or "extra poor" strata solely, which saves us a great deal of administrative effort and error. We might speak about mainstreaming before mainstreaming: for instance, we do not have poverty policy as a separate field of activity: the combat against poverty is included in all policy domains e.g. in education, health and regional policies. The approach is successful: the poverty rate is one of the lowest in the EU (no 4 from the bottom) and stays low despite the economic fluctuations. The market economy means vulnerability for some, but the social policies reduce and alleviate it.

Early education and care is one of the fields playing a major role in the combat against poverty and for equality. Heckman (e.g. 2013) has shown the high returns of investment in children at pre-school age, and a comprehensive system of early education and care promote equality as well as optimal utilization of human resources in the society. Free education and training has the same functions - Finnish globally acknowledged results effectively refute the very common misconception that good education cannot be free of charge. High level primary health care is another cornerstone of the Nordic social policy regime, and similarly to education and training it has also been an export item in Finnish international cooperation. However, with aging population, changing service needs and changing regional structures the health system needs to be reformed - presently Finland is drafting a comprehensive health system reform, which is also linked with a redefinition of local governments' role. This is not very easy and brings us to regional policy, a highly contested policy domain. Here, too, there is a strong emphasis on equality, largely implemented by means of a government transfer system assisting poor local governments - in Finland the local governments bear the key responsibility in the provision of social and health care, but the transfers are not earmarked. They are calculated on the basis of a mathematic formula taking into account e.g. the demographics of the local population, requirements of the labour market, infrastructure and language. The transfer system is confirmed by legislation, and the government transfers and their impact on taxation are public information. We may discuss the effectiveness of the system but its functions are fully transparent. Finland is according to Transparency International no. 2 country calculated from the top - this is very relevant also in social policy. These are some of the good practices of Finnish social policy. Equality is good for all, as shown e.g. by Wilkinson and Pickett (2009): it is a moral choice, but not only that: equality policies well drafted give socio-economically very good returns.

 

Stein Kuhnle

Stein Kuhnle (born 1947) received his cand.polit. degree in Comparative Politics at the University of Bergen in 1973. He is Professor of Comparative Politics at University of Bergen since 1982, and was Head of Department for about 14 years during 1983-2005. He is Professor Emeritus at Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, where he was Professor of Comparative Social Policy 2006-2013. He is Honorary Professor at Fudan University, Shanghai; at Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou; at Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou; and at University of Southern Denmark, Odense. He has been a Visiting Professor or Fellow at universities in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, China, and Australia. His major field of research has been comparative studies of welfare state development. Among his many publications can be mentioned: Stein Kuhnle (ed.) Survival of the European Welfare State (London: Routledge, 2000); Nanna Kildal and Stein Kuhnle (eds) Normative Foundations of the Welfare State: The Nordic Experience (London: Routledge, 2005); Stein Kuhnle, Chen Yinzhang, Klaus Petersen and Pauli Kettunen (eds) The Nordic Welfare State (published in Chinese: Shanghai: Fudan University Press, 2010; Japanese edition to be published in 2016).

Contact information:

Stein Kuhnle

Professor, Department of Comparative politics

University of Bergen, Norway

E-mail: stein.kuhnle@uib.no

Mobile phone: +4792492279; Office phone: +4755582179

 

Postal address:

University of Bergen

Department of Comparative Politics

Attn: STEIN KUHNLE

P.O.Box 7800

N-5020 Bergen

Norway

 

See also: http://www.uib.no/en/persons/Stein.Kuhnle

Presentation

«The Nordic (Welfare) Model»

The presentation will raise the question whether there was a special Nordic way to modernity. The timing of the birth of the concept a “Nordic (welfare) model” will be discussed, and the main components or building blocks of the Nordic model and Nordic identity will be presented. The components, which will be elaborated on, can briefly be referred to as: (1) the welfare state, (2) democracy; and (3) Nordic cooperation. The presentation will conclude with some thoughts on the viability of the model.

 

Niels Finn Christiansen

Niels Finn Christiansen, historian, born 1937, educated at the University of Copenhagen. 1969-2007 he was an associate professor, teaching in modern European and Danish history. Primary areas of research have been the history of the Danish and international socialist movements and trade unions. Moreover he has written about the history of the Danish national identity, cultural themes. He wrote the history of the Danish Cultural Institute. Recently he was co-editor and co-author of a six volume history of the Danish welfare state.

Presentation

History of the Danish Model

The initial features of the Danish welfare model were established in the decades from 1890 to 1914. They included:

Universalism

Tax financing

Individualism

Highly organized labour market

During the 20th century these principles were developed, supplemented, and at times corrected until the original model culminated in the 1970s. Under pressure from internationalization, globalization, and neo-liberalism radical changes were introduced from the 1990s until today. In spite of these challenges, the basic features have by and large been preserved.

 

Pauli Kettunen

Pauli Kettunen is Professor of Political History at the University of Helsinki. He is also Honorary Professor in Welfare State Research at the University of Southern Denmark. He has published widely on social movements; labour and business history; welfare state, industrial relations and education policies; nationalism and globalization, and the conceptual history of politics. His recent publications, also reflecting his current research interests, include Beyond Welfare State Models – Transnational Historical Perspectives on Social Policy (co-edited with Klaus Petersen, Edward Elgar 2011); Reshaping welfare institutions in China and the Nordic countries (co-edited with Stein Kuhnle and Yuan Ren, NordWel 2014; in Chinese by Fudan University Press); Race, Ethnicity and Welfare States: An American Dilemma? (co-edited with Sonya Michel and Klaus Petersen, Edward Elgar 2015).

E-mail: pauli.kettunen@helsinki.fi

Presentation

Divergent interests and virtuous circles in the Nordic model

In conventional images of the so-called Nordic model of welfare, the strong state is opposed to markets or civil society, and co-operation is opposed to conflict. In fact, however, the recognition and representation of different and conflicting interests has been a crucial aspect in the making of the Nordic model, in the practical functioning of this model, and in the notion of social citizenship that has been shaped by the outcomes of welfare policies. Two ideas were intertwined in the Nordic model: the principle of parity-based agreements between organized interests, notably those of workers and employers, and a confidence in a self-reinforcing virtuous circle to be created between divergent interests as well as between the political objectives of social equality, economic growth and widening democracy. Some prerequisites of this pattern of social regulation have been questioned by globalisation and by the efforts to handle globalisation as a challenge of national competitiveness.

Размешение Ваших турновостей на Pitert.Ru    Турновости, канал @pitertru в Telegram

Другие новости по теме «Конференции»

Март 29, 2024 - 11:36

Уважаемые коллеги! С 17 по 18 апреля в Минске состоится Второй Российско-Белорусский Туристический Конгресс.

 

Январь 11, 2024 - 15:11

С 17 по 19 января в Санкт‑Петербурге состоится XIII Евразийский Ивент Форум (EFEA) 2024, который объединит на одной площадке лидеров событийной индустрии, экспертов делового и инсентив-туризма, а также специалистов в области регионального маркетинга.

 

Декабрь 21, 2023 - 04:17

Петербургский международный туристский форум Travel Hub. Путешествуй! объединил участников из более чем 40 регионов России и 18 государств.

 

Декабрь 13, 2023 - 17:33

Круглый стол по туризму прошел на форуме "Евразийская экономическая перспекктива" в Петербурге в конце ноября.