Copyrighted material Contents. Introduction

Transcription

1 Contents List of Illustrations vii Introduction 1 Is Risk Transforming the Danish Welfare State? 3 Tea Torbenfeldt Bengtsson, Morten Frederiksen, and J ø rgen Elm Larsen Part I 2 Denmark from an International Perspective 25 Peter Abrahamson 3 Social Investment as Risk Management 41 Jon Kvist 4 Employment Relations, Flexicurity, and Risk: Explaining the Risk Profile of the Danish Flexicurity Model 57 Carsten Str ø by Jensen 5 Precarity and Public Risk Management: Trends in Denmark across Four Decades 73 Stefan B. Andrade 6 Toward a New Culture of Blame? 89 Morten Frederiksen Part II 7 When Family Life Is Risky Business Immigrant Divorce in the Women-Friendly Welfare State 109 Mai Heide Ottosen and Anika Liversage 8 The Risky Business of Educational Choice in the Meritocratic Society 125 Kristian Bernt Karlson and Anders Holm

2 vi Contents 9 Health in a Risk Perspective: The Case of Overweight 139 Nanna Mik-Meyer 10 Failing Ageing? Risk Management in the Active Ageing Society 153 Tine Rostgaard Part III 11 Controlling Young People Through Treatment and Punishment 171 Tea Torbenfeldt Bengtsson 12 Alcohol and Risk Management in a Welfare State 185 Margaretha J ä rvinen 13 The Tough and the Brittle: Calculating and Managing the Risk of Refugees 201 Katrine Syppli Kohl 14 Cash Benefit Recipients Vulnerable or Villains? 217 Dorte Caswell, J ø rgen Elm Larsen, and Stella Mia Sieling-Monas Conclusion 15 Risk Dynamics and Risk Management in the Danish Welfare State 235 Tea Torbenfeldt Bengtsson, Morten Frederiksen, and J ø rgen Elm Larsen Notes on Contributors 251 Index 257

3 THE DANISH WELFARE STATE Copyright Tea Torbenfeldt Bengtsson, Morten Frederiksen, and J ø rgen Elm Larsen, All rights reserved. First published in 2015 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN in the United States a division of St. Martin s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number , of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave and Macmillan are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN: Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Danish welfare state : a sociological investigation / edited by Tea Torbenfeldt Bengtsson, Morten Frederiksen, and Jørgen Elm Larsen. pages cm Includes index. ISBN (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Denmark Social policy. 2. Welfare state Denmark. I. Bengtsson, Tea Torbenfeldt. II. Frederiksen, Morten. III. Larsen, Jørgen Elm. HN547.D dc A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Knowledge Works (P) Ltd., Chennai, India. First edition: September

4 1 Is Risk Transforming the Danish Welfare State? Tea Torbenfeldt Bengtsson, Morten Frederiksen, and J ø rgen Elm Larsen Introduction Modern life is changing rapidly and one of the drivers for change is risk. How risks are perceived and handled, both collectively and individually, is influencing and changing the modern welfare state. The theme of risk and risk management is by no means new to the welfare state literature. Certainly, William Beveridge (1942) saw the five giant evils of Squalor, Ignorance, Want, Idleness, and Disease as corrupting for both the nation and the individual, and the proposals he courageously set out for a modern welfare state gave directions and tools for managing those risks. However, since the Beveridge Report, the notion of risk has undergone dramatic transformation. This book investigates these changes and how they have affected the Danish welfare state as a whole, as well as a range of central policy areas at different levels. The risks faced by welfare states appear to be changing, and in the process of adapting policies, practices, and institutions, welfare states are transformed. While the welfare state was initially seen as a response to threats putting both the nation and the individual at risk, risk is now increasingly seen as a threat to the welfare state itself. One important driver of this development is the growing focus on nations as competitors. An evermore globalized economy forces national governments to adopt policies to strengthen their country s position in the global marketplace. Another important driver is an increasingly

5 4 Bengtsson, Frederiksen, and Larsen individualized perception of social problems that identifies individual failure to act responsibly as a threat to the integrity of the welfare society and emphasizes the accountability and responsibility of the individual. Finally, both developments seem embedded in a cultural transformation of modern welfare states in which the ideological optimism of social engineering has been replaced by the scientific neutrality of risk management. Denmark provides an interesting case for investigating the impact of these developments. First, because Denmark belongs to the group of Nordic welfare states that, to the fullest extent, have realized Beveridge s vision of a modern welfare state, with both universal coverage and room for individual responsibility. Second, because the Danish welfare state has historically combined state, market, and civil society to an extent that sets it apart from the other Nordic countries and that may presage the development currently faced by several modern welfare states. Finally, Denmark is a small and open economy that has proved remarkably resilient in the face of the global economic and financial crisis, despite a high level of taxation and a large public sector. Risk and the Welfare State Some of the challenges faced by most developed welfare states are demographic change, globalization, increasing expenditure, and economic crisis. These developments increasingly press welfare states into a mode of risk planning. Rather than the social engineering approach of the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, and the retrenchment approach of the 1980s and 1990s, the past 20 years have brought us the social investment state or the competition state. In contrast to the focus on employment and production structure that was characteristic of the previous phases of the welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 1990), the social investment state is characterized by an increased focus on competitiveness both nationally and within the population (Cerny, 1990). This mode of public planning, policymaking, and governance targets risk avoidance. First, planning at the macro level targets the risks associated with the aforementioned challenges in terms of remaining competitive whilst retaining tax-financed welfare. The risks posed by falling behind in the global economy are compounded by the threat of national job loss for low-cost economies within and outside Europe. Consequently, the needs for innovation, labor-market flexibility, and knowledge-intensive production are common for investment-state politics. In practice, such political ambitions are often embedded

6 Risk and the Danish Welfare State? 5 in supply-side economics focusing on a well-educated, healthy, and flexible labor force (Frericks, Maier, and de Graaf, 2009). In contrast to many other countries, the Danish welfare state provides free access to all levels of education and a health care system that is free of charge for all citizens. Second, risk planning at the microlevel seeks to alter individual behavior, increasing contributions and reducing the costs of controlling the macro-level risks. The policies and institutional reforms aimed at preventing risks at this level are usually cast in the microeconomic language of incentives and perverse incentives, which are often referred to as neoliberal reforms. While the macrolevel aspects of risk planning are well known within contemporary political, economic, and social research, we are only just beginning to understand the mechanics and effects of microlevel risk planning (Rose, 1999). The common point of departure in this book is the twofold development that (i) risk is increasingly seen as an individualized responsibility, so that the moral and political focus on individual choices and their consequences has increased. Given this new perception of risk, individual choice is increasingly viewed as the source of the macroeconomic risks faced by the welfare state. In response, (ii) policies and economic planning aim, on one hand, to prevent or control specific types of individual behavior and choices and, on the other, to encourage citizens to actively and responsibly contribute to solving both their own problems and those faced by society in general. Denmark has been, and still is, one of the most equal societies in the world (OECD, 2008). However, equality is increasingly perceived more as a question of equal access to social welfare benefits (e.g., education) and less as a question of equality in outcome (e.g., income equality). The Danish Case What Is Unique about Denmark When Examined through Theories of Risk? In 2011, Francis Fukuyama stated that Denmark stands generically for a developed country with well-functioning state institutions and described a task facing most Liberal democracies of getting to Denmark. According to Fukuyama, Denmark has institutionalized a unique historical settlement between state and market between Liberal and Social Democratic solutions in a welfare and labormarket model distinct even within the Nordic countries. Furthermore,

7 6 Bengtsson, Frederiksen, and Larsen Denmark displays a surprising adaptability and resilience in the face of globalization and the current economic crisis, despite a huge public sector and one of the highest tax rates in the world. While Denmark s historical trajectory cannot be replicated by others, investigating the ways in which Denmark responds to the risks that many rich Western countries currently face will be helpful to understanding the versatility and durability of the Danish model and to questioning whether getting to Denmark is possible or even desirable. We should note that the issues concern not only welfare institutions, welfare policies, and governance through state interventions, but also the market and civil society. Denmark is and has for a long time been a small, open economy that must be competitive in the international/global market. As mentioned, the social investment state (or the competitive state) supports and invests in the (Danish) market players (citizens) in such a way that a highly educated and healthy labor force is available (owing to such factors as free access to the education and health care systems). Denmark has, for a long time, been confronting the new social risks of modern life and globalization and has been forced to find political solutions to them much earlier than many other European/ Western countries. There is no precise definition of the concept of new social risks, but it includes, among other things, the imbalance between family and working life (especially for women), unstable families, being a single mother, having frail elderly family members (especially +80-year-olds), and having no or little education and therefore difficulties in achieving and maintaining a job (Bonoli, 2005; Ejrn æ s and Boje, 2013). Added to these risks are the factors of increasing labor and refugee migration. One of the main differences between old and new social risks is that political solutions to new social risks are directed at overcoming different types of barriers to participation in the labor market (commodification), while the solutions to old social risks to a high degree concerned being released from the constraints and consequences of market participation (decommodification). It is, however, important to point out that old social risks are not replaced by new social risks, but, rather, that they coexist and may constitute an especially toxic cocktail for individuals who, because they are unskilled, are the least attractive both in the labor market and as partners in family life. A relevant question is whether the future of the welfare state is under pressure because of the risks, or whether risks are creating new opportunities for the welfare state. The changing conditions under which welfare states operate are not, as in the 1970s and 1980s, cast in

8 Risk and the Danish Welfare State? 7 terms of welfare state crisis, but as challenges to welfare states risks that may favor or disfavor (welfare) states according to their ability to make the right investments and to be competitive. Taylor-Gooby (2009) refers to these challenges as being first and second order. The first order is about global, international, and national challenges in relation to new social risks caused by the transition from industrial to postindustrial societies and the increasing individualization in rich, Western countries. The second order is about changes in the logic of political governance in relation to how welfare states should deal with the new social risks at both the institutional level and in relation to the individual. The Danish welfares state s response to the development of new risks may presage that of other welfare states. In particular, the policy responses and risk management of the new social risks at both macro and microlevels presented in this book may inspire or deter. Risk Development and Risk Theory As discussed above, risk is not a new issue of welfare-state policies. What is new is the changing perception of risk and the role assigned to risk management within social policy and institutional reforms. In the following, we outline four different sociological approaches that are helpful in describing and conceptualizing different aspects of the emerging forms of risks. Just as risk and risk management seem to have become key elements in our understanding of the Danish welfare state and its role, risk has also become a key sociological concept. Risks have social implications and we therefore need to understand risks socially (Arnoldi, 2009). Sociologists do not necessarily agree about how to understand risks, as risks may be seen as realist or constructed, but what sociologists do agree on is that risks are increasingly relevant to sociological research and theorizing while seeking to understand modern society. Risk has become an almost ever-present aspect of modern social life an aspect that cannot be avoided or controlled, but that we nonetheless seek to better understand and manage. It is thus understandable that risk is increasingly found in our structuring of the social world, in the form of sociological theories. Our theorizing about risk builds on our initial understanding of the social aspects and leads to different research programs and interpretations. What we notice and what we ignore are often guided by our theoretical understanding of risk and its character (Zinn, 2008). It therefore becomes important to clarify the different theoretical understandings of risk that are drawn on by the contributions to this book.

9 8 Bengtsson, Frederiksen, and Larsen Overall, we include four different theoretical understandings of risk in the book: risk society, risk culture, risk control, and risk as uncertainty. These four understandings demonstrate a broad approach to risk in sociological research and make advanced analysis of different areas and themes possible. The first understanding sees risk as being linked to the uncertainty of new technologies. The resulting difficulties in coming to terms with these risks creates what Ulrich Beck (1992) has termed a risk society. The second understanding is founded in Mary Douglas and Wildavsky s (1982) cultural approach to risk as the culturally marked differences in fear of and the willingness to avoid risk. The third understanding focuses on risk control and how risk is used to control and govern and takes its point of departure in Michel Foucault s (2009, 2010) theory of governmentality and its later developments. This approach explores how the knowledge of risk is used in various technologies of government to govern and regulate citizens and society. The fourth approach perceives risk as the subjective assessment of uncertain outcomes of actions and choices (Hardin, 1992; Luhmann, 1993). Risk is seen as a ubiquitous aspect Table 1.1 Four Different Approaches to Risk in This Book Approach Understanding of risk Perspective Risk society Cultural theory Governmentality Managed uncertainty Risks are both real and socially constructed. Risk is predominantly seen as an emergent, avoidable, but uncontrollable, phenomenon. Perceptions and awareness of risks and dangers have increased. Risks are socially transformed between groups. Risk is predominantly seen as practices and events that are divergent from dominant social institutions. Risks are socially constructed. Risk is predominantly seen as practices and identities failing to adhere to reified rationalities of the state. New forms of control create new forms of risks. Risks are both real and socially constructed. Risk is predominantly seen as uncertain and undesirable outcomes of individual choices and actions. New forms of risk arise with the increasing complexity of modern society. Both reality and understandings of reality influence each other in creating risks. When constituting its borders, groups transform real threats into culturally determined risks. Events are risks when they are assigned to be so as part of a calculative technology/discourse. Uncertain events are seen as risks when taken into account by the individual and assigned an expected probability.

10 Risk and the Danish Welfare State? 9 of action within the complex relations and interactions of modernity. These four understandings of risk differ considerably and build on quite diverging ideas about society and the ontological status of risk. However, they all share the key insight that to understand the risks of modernity and a modern welfare state like Denmark s we must develop theories that recognize that risks are socially founded, involving more than an objectively given probability. These four understandings are not the only way to theorize risk within a sociological framework. Yet when we address the specifics of the Danish welfare state, these four understandings are the most significant. The chapters in this anthology all draw on or integrate these understandings of risk in order to best analyze how, in different ways, risks are significant to our understanding of welfare states and their developments ( Table 1.1 ). Risk Society The core argument in Ulrich Beck s (1992) book, Risk Society, is that in advanced modernity the social production of wealth is systematically accompanied by the social production of risks (p. 19) and risk has come to define the current state of modernity. Modern society is defined by a range of new risks that are closely connected to new forms of technology and organization in the modernization process, creating hazards and potential threats to an extent previously unknown (Beck, 1992). Beck distinguishes between danger and risk. Danger is caused by nature, while risk is created by humans and is closely related to the uncertain impact of risk on the future. It is this uncertainty that characterizes the new forms of risk in current modernity, as they are often intangible and can be known only through scientific tests. They are also latent and will thus only manifest themselves over time. An example is the risk associated with global warming. However, risk in modern society not only is restricted to technological risks, but also concerns new forms of risks related to societal transformations by processes of individualization and institutionalized individualism (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002). These risks are brought into being by transformation in a number of social domains, such as the family, gender relations, emigration, education, and working life, which produces uncertainties, risks, and chances (Zinn, 2008). Consequently, to Beck, the transformation of society characteristic of advanced modernity means that human societies are increasingly becoming a source of problems, as well as a solution to problems. Moreover, these problems are increasingly complex and generalized, leaving both society and

11 10 Bengtsson, Frederiksen, and Larsen individuals struggling to manage the fundamentally unmanageable risks of advanced modernity. A central argument in Beck s analysis of the risk society is that the new forms of risk also lead to new political conflicts. During the industrial age the main political conflicts concerned the distribution of wealth, but in the risk society the political conflicts concern the distribution of risks. Even though unequal opportunities to respond to new risks might remain, the individual s chances of escaping risks decline. Such conflicts are seen to be rising within civil society in the form of increasing politicized relations and conflicts between NGOs advocating the interests of different types of illness and the treatment in terms of resource priorities. Even more pertinent to the development of the postindustrial welfare societies is that welfare institutions themselves produce risk in terms of neglect of the elderly, insufficient care for children in day care, or substandard educational requirements of students. Such risks make the allocation of resources within the welfare state the subject of risk avoidance politics for citizens who are dependent on these welfare institutions. The new risks cannot be avoided and to some degree they can be said to have an egalitarianizing effect, as they do not distinguish between the rich and the poor. Even though no one can escape them, the new risks are not equally distributed and some individuals and groups experience more consequences of risks than others, since risks tend to sink to the bottom of the social hierarchy, while wealth rises to the top. Beck s argument is that the distribution of risks increasingly becomes as relevant to politics as the distribution of wealth, due to increases in the uncertainty and uncontrollability of risks. In the book World at Risk, Beck (2009) stresses that with increasing globalization follows an increase in social risks such as terrorism. Here, he takes a more constructivist approach to risk than presented in Risk Society. For example, he discusses how risks not only occur, but are also actively staged. In staging risks, governments, media, and global enterprises demonstrate their perception of risk and thus present their particular understanding of risks to the (global) audience. How risks are staged also influences how risks could or should be managed. The risk society is global and must be understood through the process of globalization and the increasing influence of the management of transnational risks. One example is the growing numbers of labor migrants and refugees that have also affected Danish society. Especially during the 2000s this has been seen as a risk that challenges the Danish welfare system and the cohesion of Danish society.

12 Risk and the Danish Welfare State? 11 Accordingly, throughout the 2000s the Liberal-Conservative government pursued a restrictive immigration policy. However, this policy has not stopped immigration because the rules for the free migration of labor within the EU have led to immigration from other EU member states. This immigration has presented new challenges concerning pay levels, working conditions, and access to welfare benefits in Danish society. In Beck s (world) risk society there is thus no escaping risks and while the welfare state helps to protect its citizens from certain risks, new risks are inevitably created, leading to new uncertainty and lack of control. Risk Culture Mary Douglas s theory of risk is linked to culture. To understand risk in contemporary modern society, we must therefore examine Western culture and how the collectively shared body of principles and values is used to justify behavior (Douglas, 1986, p. 67). Risks are culturally formed through a collective notion of pollution and thereby what is seen as pure or dirty. What is actually seen as pure or dirty is specific to a given culture. However, distinctions between what is pure and what is polluting form systems of classification in all cultures. Classificatory systems uphold order and prescribe what can be mixed and what must be kept distinct in a given culture. Risk is the threat of the classificatory system being disturbed and thrown out of order. An example is the increased problematization and stigmatization of recipients of social assistance by politicians and the media in Denmark in recent years. Increasingly, recipients of social assistance have been portrayed as demanding and lazy and have accordingly been perceived by the public as a danger to the work ethic and an insult to the hardworking laborer (Cevea, 2014). Partly as a result of this, politicians have reformed the cash benefit system by creating more incentives (that is, lower benefits) for especially young social assistance recipients to enroll for an education program or take a job. In Douglas s view, risk becomes moral transgression because it is moral values that uphold the social and political order and thus the classificatory system of a given culture. Risk gives a community a shared, morally founded danger that someone must be held accountable for, and risk can therefore be used to mobilize the community. If someone who is already unpopular is to be held responsible, this will strengthen the community. However, the community is weakening in modern societies, giving room for more individuality. Risk in these societies is therefore increasingly focused on violations of

13 12 Bengtsson, Frederiksen, and Larsen individuality. Consequently, rights and responsibilities with regard to welfare services are increasingly framed in terms of rights deriving from tax contributions, which cultivates an actuarial view of welfare benefits, rather than being framed in terms of the moral and social obligations that were such a vital part of the social engineering of the modern welfare state. While Douglas does not suggest that risk is a phenomenon on the rise or decline, her analysis does, nonetheless, suggest that changes in the perceived nature of risk may occur. Douglas proposes a typology of societies according to the level of collectivism (group) and the level of hierarchy (grid). Following this typology, changes in the importance of hierarchy or community may change the attribution of risk from individuals to systems, or the reverse. Modern societies have lost faith in technology, but at the same time have become obsessed with probabilities. This is a development of which Douglas is highly critical, as notions of objective probability exclude the subjective elements that are part of all risk perceptions. Risks are not objectively given facts, but concern cultural values, and therefore become related to power and are thus political. Risk Control This third approach to risk as risk control is not defined by one main figure. Although the term governmentality was introduced by Michel Foucault, it has later been developed and further theorized by others, such as Nikolas Rose, Peter Miller, and Mitchell Dean. Their work has inspired a number of others to explore the role of risk in governmentality in a number of different areas. Risk control as governmentality is therefore an approach to studying risk, rather than a clearly defined theory of risk. The focus is on the concept of risk and its usage, rather than objective risks or their perception (Arnoldi, 2009, pp ). The transition from welfare to workfare illustrates this development as a shift from collective protection from structurally produced risk to an elaborate system of institutions and governance structures that seek to motivate and engender an increased sense of individual responsibility and purpose for those temporarily outside the labor market. Simultaneously, the individual is conflated with the ability to enact this responsibility and motivation, regardless of possible options and chances. Foucault described how a new form of government arose in the eighteenth century, seeing it as its task to increase the quality of life for its populations through new forms of government. The new form

14 Risk and the Danish Welfare State? 13 of government was not developed on the basis of coercion, but on caregiving and governance, where power was increasingly dispersed from the Sovereign and embedded in new scientific practices. These new forms of knowledge created self-governed individuals, expecting or requiring the individual to take responsibility for his or her own situation in life. Modern power conducts individuals into conducting themselves in certain ways through education, knowledge, and other technologies (Dean, 1999; Rose, 1999). The governmentality approach to risk identifies both a long-term historical development and a more short-term development. The long-term development links the changing risk perceptions to a pastoral perception of power and responsibility developed within Lutheran Christianity. It is argued that the mutuality of pastoral responsibility for the flock and individual accountability to the pastor (and God) is reproduced in the modern welfare state. In the short-term perspective, it is this pastoral power principle that is reproduced in a neoliberal mode of governing by installing self-governing technologies. The increasing use of moral and economic incentives in social policy is a case in point. Risk is part of these governing technologies as it has become a way in which problems are objectified and, as such, is central to the way that modern society is governed. Knowledge about risk is translated into government practices and embodied in individuals conducting their own conduct. Through power, the modern state becomes co-constitutive of identities, motivations, and aspirations, so that the actions and self-governing practices of individuals in part reflect their constitution as subjects of the state. Risk as Managed Uncertainty Within economics, risk is usually treated in the Knightian (Knight, 1921) meaning: Risk is calculable and measureable in terms of both probability and outcome, in contradistinction to uncertainty, which is fundamentally incalculable and unmeasurable. While economists have focused on extending the domain of risk into the domain of uncertainty through predictive models (Von Neumann and Morgenstern, 2007), sociological approaches are focused on the way people turn uncertainty into risk (Coleman, 1990). One prominent sociological theory in this regard is Niklas Luhmann s (1993) theory of risk, which to some extent parallels the rational choice theory of risk. Luhmann emphasizes the importance of individual perception and attribution as part of making sense of an otherwise complex and uncertain world. Society and the social are

15 14 Bengtsson, Frederiksen, and Larsen characterized by contingency: a broad span of potential future outcomes which, in time, narrows down to the manifestation of only one outcome in the present. However, which outcome emerges may be a consequence of our own preceding actions, forcing us to consider the risks of unwanted outcomes associated with those actions. An example is that young people must make educational choices, but even if they choose not to take an education this is also a choice that carries its own risks of unwanted outcomes. According to Luhmann (1988, 1993), the increasing complexity of society and the increasing demands on the subjects to be accountable for outcomes of their decisions increase subjective risk awareness. A parallel interpretation of risk, within rational choice theory (Elster, 2007, p. 125), perceives risk as one of four fundamental cognitive attitudes. Risk involves the complex process of devising a course of action based on subjectively assessed probabilities under conditions of uncertainty (Coleman, 1990, p. 778). This is in contrast to the straightforward actions stemming from certainty and the inability to act or at least act for a reason as a consequence of uncertainty and ignorance. Rational action under conditions of uncertainty is considered to be like participating in a lottery in which the risk of incurring a loss is estimated from the subjectively assessed probabilities of each potential outcome. It is only by assessing these probabilities that the individual becomes able to devise a strategy and decide on a specific course of action, rather than losing the ability to act in the face of uncertainty. This assessment is based on experience and belief, making it quite different from the formal calculation of probabilities. Illustrating both perspectives, a current public debate in Denmark concerns limiting access to specific university studies that currently expose students to a high risk of unemployment after they graduate. However, historically it has proved very difficult to predict which academic disciplines the labor market will have a low or high demand for in the future. Setting limitations to access to a discipline for which demand is currently low involves the risk of a labor shortage in the future, if the demand side changes. Approaching risk as a question of managing uncertainty, this involves a shift from making educational policy decisions based on ideology or tradition to setting educational policies based on risk. The risky business of changing educational structures based on present expectations of the future involves not only the issue of adverse outcomes but also the potential of blame being attributed to the decision maker. The very problem that these decisions seek to overcome is an uncertainty produced by the efforts

16 Risk and the Danish Welfare State? 15 to predict the future: economic modelling of global labor-market development. The onslaught of individualization and increasing social complexity requires people to justify their actions and choices with reference to the specific outcomes, rather than traditions and institutions. Consequently, avoiding the attribution of blame or potential unwanted outcomes is an even more important part of the strategies people employ in navigating social interaction. The increasing complexity of educational choices and strategies for a healthy lifestyle are just some of the many domains in which this increased individualized accountability and pressure for strategizing are being manifested. Presentation of Chapters What is significant in this book are the ways in which risks are addressed in a number of different areas of the Danish welfare state, at different levels of inquiry. The focus is thus on how we can understand risk as dynamic processes and through different levels of analysis. To grasp the dynamics of risks, the empirical questions throughout the chapters are elaborated through different theoretical framings of risks, creating a unique focus on risk as an active agent for change and thus on the dynamics of risk. The first part addresses risks at a macro level and comprises comparative chapters that place the Danish welfare state in relation to other welfare states by examining the role of risk in relation to globalization, social welfare, employment, inequality, and values. The chapters in the second part of the book address significant areas of the universal welfare state and investigate the role of risk in family life, in choosing education, in governing the population s health, and in governing for the care of the elderly. The last part of the book consists of chapters analyzing how the Danish welfare state handles and governs groups with social problems related to crime and alcohol use/misuse. This section also contains chapters that consider how refugees and recipients of social benefits are treated. Across the three parts of the book, a variety of sociological methods are used, while models of how to conceptualize risks in a modern welfare state are developed in theoretically and empirically founded analysis. In chapter 2, through a comparative discussion of different welfare models, Peter Abrahamson shows how the Danish welfare system that was in place in the mid-1970s, when the world turned global, was well-prepared and has proved to be very robust. He argues that, like other welfare states, it has changed significantly, but differently to what was anticipated by neoliberalism. Processes of pluralization have

17 16 Bengtsson, Frederiksen, and Larsen not only made it more flexible, but also differentiated productive citizens, who enjoy a high degree of risk protection, from less-productive citizens, who are subject to more punitive risk-control mechanisms. Abrahamson concludes that the Scandinavian welfare model is becoming less distinct as it converges toward the social investment paradigm. Even though similar changes can be seen globally, these changes can only be understood from the specifically Scandinavian starting point of very homogeneous societies. The social investment paradigm as risk management is discussed further and in more detail in chapter 3 by Jon Kvist. Through comparisons of policies and returns across three European countries, Kvist examines the role of the social investment strategy in the management of social risks at different life stages in Denmark, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The chapter demonstrates how the emphasis on social investment and targeting of the less privileged strata distinguishes Danish policies from those in Germany and the United Kingdom. The strategy of social investment thus serves the dual purpose of risk prevention and risk promotion for less privileged socioeconomic groups and can further contribute to explaining the egalitarian outcomes in the Scandinavian welfare states. In chapter 4, Carsten Str ø by Jensen focuses on characteristics of the Danish flexicurity model, which organizes labor markets with both flexibility and welfare by combining low levels of employment protection with high welfare support to the unemployed. Comparing Denmark with the United States and the United Kingdom, Jensen shows that security and flexibility can coexist in the same system and contribute to the development of a dynamic labor market. Configurations between corporate actors in the Danish employment relations system suggest that labor-market parties are able to agree on a trade-off between flexibility and welfare support in the event of unemployment, because the economic risks are externalized to the state. However, cuts in unemployment benefits and the decreasing public support of the labor unions have put the Danish flexicurity model under pressure. Looking at inequality over generations in Denmark, Stefan Andrade demonstrates in chapter 5 how Denmark is one of the most equal societies and that the risks associated with the precarization of the labor market found in other European countries are not present in Denmark. The Danish labor market is, however, becoming more polarized in terms of high- and low-wage occupations. Andrade s analysis shows that economic risks for the lower social classes are increasing in Denmark because the outsourcing of jobs has drained the Danish

18 Risk and the Danish Welfare State? 17 labor market of low-skill manual jobs, in particular. This development of new economic risks can lead to changes within the class structure, thereby putting future social investment strategies under pressure In the last chapter of part 1, chapter 6, Morten Frederiksen investigates risk in public perceptions and how values may be changing over time, alongside policies and politics. The chapter addresses these issues by analyzing values and attitudes related to social assistance and unemployment by comparing Denmark to the United Kingdom and Germany. Frederiksen finds that surprisingly little has changed in terms of values and attitudes and that cultural standards of risk perceptions are resilient to policy changes. This demonstrates that there is a stability of egalitarian, non-individualizing risk perceptions in Denmark. Part 2 of the book focuses on significant areas of the universal welfare state. Chapter 7, by Mai Heide Ottosen and Anika Liversage, examines family life as one such area. Ottosen and Liversage analyze how risk can be part of intimate relations, as well as the role of the welfare state when family life breaks down. Using the case of divorced immigrants (mainly in socially disadvantaged families), the chapter demonstrates how the Danish welfare state contributes to change by liberating women and children from life in dysfunctional families. However, at the same time, these processes of liberation that, in part, are made possible by the welfare system simultaneously dislodge men from their positions as husbands, and often also as fathers. While the social welfare system thus supports and protects some vulnerable groups from the potential risks of family life, new unintended risks may create new vulnerable groups who are excluded from family life. In chapter 8, Kristian Karlson and Anders Holm investigate why educational inequalities in Denmark persist, despite expansion of the educational system designed to foster social mobility. By investigating the changing nature and prevalence of educational risks, which are related to educational expansion and processes of individualization, Karlson and Holm find that students must increasingly rely on strategic cultural resources located in the family to navigate complex educational careers. Such resources are sharply differentiated according to the family s social position and social inequalities in educational outlooks, thereby reproducing educational inequalities. With the development of the social investment focus on individual responsibility, these structural inequalities may increasingly be concealed as educational decision-making and the responsibility of the individual. Karlson and Holm thus demonstrate how wider institutional changes have implications for the prevalence of educational risks at the household level.

19 18 Bengtsson, Frederiksen, and Larsen Chapter 9 turns to the area of health and how an increased focus on health issues in Danish society is strongly related to an agenda of risk. Nanna Mik-Meyer focuses her analysis on the current risk assessment of the presumed medical and social problems faced by people who are overweight. She demonstrates how a growing political and media interest, along with managers perceptions of risks, results in the image that overweight people face psychological problems and are unable to take responsibility for their own lives. Mik-Meyer argues that when labeling particular groups as at risk, the welfare state, together with other powerful and economically strong players, problematizes an already disfavored population group. The result may be a strengthening of sociopolitical health inequality, despite the expressed political wish for health equality. The last chapter of part two focuses on ageing and the policies and management of the risks associated with the welfare system s care of older citizens. In chapter 10, Tine Rostgaard examines how the long-term care approach has been replaced by a more active approach that emphasizes reablement and ideally enables the individual to postpone and reduce the need for permanent care. This new approach emphasizes reablement and autonomy through individualized risk management and responsibility for active ageing. However, the active approach automatically problematizes the conduct of inactive groups that are either unwilling to change or incapable of change. The consequence may be that these groups are not helped and cared for, and that they are seen as having failed competent ageing. Part 3 of the book focuses on the welfare state s handling of social problems such as crime and alcohol misuse, as well as marginalized groups, that is, refugees and social security recipients. In chapter 11, Tea Torbenfeldt Bengtsson discusses how the Danish judicial system for juvenile crime is influenced by new risks and fears of being soft on crime, which have led to increased focus on control. The desire to rehabilitate young people through treatment is, in itself, a humane ambition, seeking to integrate individuals into society. However, when treatment is combined with control and punishment, the wish to rehabilitate also becomes inhumane, as the young person is both physically and socially excluded. Bengtsson demonstrates that on seeking to control young people involved in crime, the Danish social welfare state is social and humane, but simultaneously exclusionary and at times inhumane. In chapter 12, Margaretha J ä rvinen focuses on alcohol consumption as an area of late-modern risk management in the Danish welfare state. Denmark has chosen a form of alcohol policy that focuses

20 Risk and the Danish Welfare State? 19 on demand, rather than supply, and continuously strengthens a public health strategy of managing drinking through individual lifestyle changes. However, J ä rvinen finds differences between the alcohol governmentality perspective of the health care agencies and the risk conceptions of alcohol consumers. A traditional risk conception of alcohol persists among alcohol consumers who dichotomize drinking into compulsive drinking and non-compulsive drinking. Drinking is considered to be outside the remit of lifestyle governance and to belong to a sphere of sociability and relaxation that should not be invaded by health concerns. J ä rvinen finds that the Danish alcohol policy aimed at individual lifestyle changes creates categories of moral order and disorder, defining some alcohol consumers as rational and responsible and others as irrational and irresponsible. The governance of refugees in the Danish welfare state is considered in chapter 13. Katrine Syppli Kohl demonstrates how new techniques of power and new imaginaries of risk have influenced Denmark s selection process for refugees for third-country resettlement (quota refugees). Refugee selection has been placed under tight political control and refugees are increasingly expected to transform themselves into self-governing, economically responsible individuals who are willing to work, while those deemed not capable of integration are excluded. Among the excluded refugees were those who appeared fragile or weak, or who had mental health problems. However, being unproductive is perceived as less problematic than being single or having mental health problems. Kohl thus shows how the selection practice is used as a technique to reduce uncertainty by attempting to calculate and manage the levels of risk that refugees present to Danish society in order to balance the dual objectives of improving refugees quality of life while reducing the risk of idleness for the competition state. In the final chapter of part 3, chapter 14, Dorte Caswell, J ø rgen Elm Larsen, and Stella Mia Sieling-Monas investigate the current Danish unemployment policy regime from the perspective of the cash benefit recipient. Despite the use of risk management policy tools, such as lower cash benefits and financial sanctions, cash benefit recipients are not able to achieve an occupation or education. However, these policy tools have a substantial, detrimental impact on the clients quality of life. These policy tools, which are intended to reduce the risks of prolonged welfare benefit dependency, carry with them new individualized risks for the clients in question. In combination, the various chapters of the book provide a unique insight into the Danish welfare state and how sociological risk frameworks can contribute to our understanding of its challenges and

21 20 Bengtsson, Frederiksen, and Larsen prospects. The different perspectives demonstrate that the Danish welfare state is developing in all the areas analyzed and that it may not be possible to speak of a cohesive Danish welfare model. Instead, a number of different risk dynamics and risk management tools appear to be at play at different levels and within different areas. However, the chapters of this book also demonstrate that welfare still forms the hub of the organization of Danish society and that the welfare system is generally well-integrated in the lives of all Danes at many different levels. The stability, capability, and capacity of Danish welfare institutions may still make Denmark a place worth getting to. However, it is also apparent that the universal involvement of the welfare state in all aspects of life makes individualized risk produced by public responsibilization an increasingly ubiquitous phenomenon. References Arnoldi, J. (2009) Risk (Cambridge: Polity Press). Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (New Delhi: Sage). Beck, U. (2009) World at Risk (Cambridge: Polity Press). Beck, U., and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002) Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences (London: Sage). Beveridge, W. (1942) Social Insurance and Allied Services (London: HMSO). Bonoli, G. (2005) The Politics of the New Social Policies: Providing Coverage against New Social Risks in Mature Welfare States. Policy & Politics, 33 (3), Cerny, P. (1990) The Changing Architecture of Politics: Structure, Agency, and the Future of the State (London: Sage). Cevea (2014) Framing af ledighed; dovne hunde, systemets ofre eller jobj æ gere? [ Framing Unemployment; Lazy, Victims or Job Hunters? ] (Copenhagen: Cevea). Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory (Cambridge and Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press). Dean, M. (1999) Risk, Calculable and Incalculable. In D. Lupton (ed.), Risk and Sociocultural Theory: New Directions and Perspectives, pp (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Douglas, M. (1986) Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences (New York: Russell Sage Foundation). Douglas, M., and Wildavsky, A. (1982) Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers (Berkeley: University of California Press). Ejrn æ s, A., and Boje, T. P. (2013) New Social Risks and Work Family Balance. In A. Moreno (ed.), Family Well-Being: European Perspectives. Social Indicators Research Series, Vol. 48, pp