Introduction

Western welfare states such as Sweden and the United Kingdom have taken particular interest in children in particular and families in general because these are the groups that form the centrepiece of most political and policy debates. The reason behind this interest in children is that they are forms human capital that will become useful in the future. Additionally, the way children are depicted in society represent's that society's moral worth.

Sweden and the UK are both welfare states. However, the way they have handled childhood poverty differs quite substantially. In Sweden, the system is founded on social democracy. In fact, this is one of the only developed countries in the world that have managed to base their political and economic system on social democracy. However, in the UK, there is a dual system in place. Some people argue that it is a liberal one while others believe that there is more centred on universal provision. The paper shall look at these two welfare systems in relation to childhood poverty.

The UK's welfare system

In the United Kingdom, there have been a number of changes in the welfare system. First of all, there was a shift to the Bismarkian model which was applicable during the nineteen sixties and subsequently in the nineteen seventies. At that time there was greater emphasis on the issue of special insurance. Here benefits given were largely related to an individual's earnings. Additionally, there was a very small social value safety net covering the public. (Schofield & Beek, 2003)

During the late nineteen seventies, the United Kingdom embraced a much more diverse welfare system. The social insurance benefits were curtailed and they were no longer related to people's earnings. This meant that there was a radical shift from the former mentioned model in the sixties. Additionally, it was not providing as much assistance as was necessary thus causing a change to another model in the mid nineteen nineties.

In the year 1996, there was greater emphasis on the following three aspects

• Conditionality
• Support services
• Incentives

The current welfare system represents a paradigm shift from less engagement to greater engagement. On top of that, it also depicts a situation in which there are greater support functions within the country. Pensioners and children were given more support in this system than in the first two systems. Additionally, personalised support services were also considered as an important priority. However, this emerging model is not yet fully developed. Analysts assert that they are still watching to see if there will be a tendency to move towards the system in Canada and New Zealand or whether the system will remain as it is.

When one brings in the issue of children in relation to the UK welfare system, it can be seen that a substantial portion of the system does not account for the issues that children face. For instance a large percentage of the pay systems have been improved over the past few years. Minimum wages have gone up for all workers who fall under the low income bracket. However, these pay system do not incorporate children in those respective families. (Wintour, 2003)

It should be noted that the government made its stand known in a report concerning the tax credit system in the year 2001. They asserted that tax credits can be divided into two major groups; those ones that are targeted at the working class and those ones that fall under the child tax credit.

Before looking at the current child tax credits that became applicable in the late nineties, it essential to understand where child support mostly came from in the past. This was through

-Tax credits given to earners in couples

-Family credit

-Income support

-Child benefits

Child benefit support largely entailed a universal system in which mothers were given support for every child that they had. If a family did not have any source of income, they were given income support which was supposed to go to the head of the home. Additionally, prior to the latest changes, there was a system, in which mothers who were working could get support through a tax credit that was refundable and it was known as family credit. Lastly, the government also offered couples with children the opportunity to get a non-refundable tax credit if one of the members in that couple was working.

The government changed the amounts that could be earned by families in all the latter mentioned categories. In the 1998 UK budget, the government announced that the level of support given to parents with children would increase up to twenty percent for all the children that an individual had. The government also announced a system in which younger children aged one year to four years would get an overall increase of thirteen pounds; this represented an increase of close to seventy three percent of the original entitlements. Additionally, the government also asserted that children between the ages of eleven and fifteen would be entitled to a five pound increased.  This difference was brought about by the fact that the government used to support the older age group a little more than the younger group hence creating a disparity in the system. (Slater, 2003)

It should be noted that the British welfare model has been used as an example for many other countries owing to the fact that it is a mixture of systems. Many other European countries decided to take up the British system because they liked the level of integration there. There was a sort of cradle to grave method that was adopted with regard to health care and insurance and this served as a platform for other countries who wanted to do the same. The major aspect that attracted other countries to copy their social welfare model was the fact that it was universal and that its contributions were flat. This meant that issues of inequality were adequately catered for here.

Despite this enormous adoption of the system by other countries, one cannot ignore the fact that other developed nations have come up with better social welfare systems than the United Kingdom. This is because those respective countries have managed to tackle poverty very well. Also, this means that these other welfare countries have placed the issue of childhood poverty in their priority list more than their counterparts in Britain. (Edwards, 2003)

The social welfare system in the UK is a liberal one. Again, this is the same system that has been adopted by the United States. The thing that distinguishes the British system with others is the fact that here, greater emphasis is given to a category of people who deserve social welfare. In other words, welfare recipients are divided into the deserving and undeserving category. Most of the benefits offered in this system are rather limited. Consequently, when one tries to relate them to childhood poverty, then it can be seen that this does not form such a priority. Most of the dependents who are entitled to the benefits end up being frustrated. (Axford, Little & Morpheth, 2003)

In the United Kingdom, it is commonplace to find that the level of provision does not cover all groups that need it especially in relation to children and their needs in poverty stricken homes. On the contrary, the UK system has a relatively moderate level of equality. Different categories are all accounted for but most of their needs rarely get met. The reason for this issue is that there are low intensities of taxes that are granted to family members who are in need of welfare assistance. Additionally, the categories of beneficiaries in the UK are also rather low.

In the UK, benefits granted to workless families are not as high as those who go to work. Consequently, this creates a scenario in which people who need welfare have to show that they fall in the deserving category. Usually, persons who fall under the latter category are those ones who stay at work. Consequently, the UK welfare system has encouraged more people to continue in the latter state. This means that the country is not as well equipped as it should be to fight poverty. This is because many workless families are unable to cater for their children and this further propagates the cycle of child poverty here.

Sweden's welfare system

In Sweden, the welfare system is founded on a provision that specifically targets childhood poverty. It should be noted the system operating here is founded on social democracy rather than on a capitalist system. Unlike other counterparts in the developed world, the Swedish system focuses on the provision of benefits to both the middle class and the working class. This system is founded upon a system of solidarity. In other words, the focus is on bridging the gap between the very poor and the rest of society. (Swenson, 2002)

In Sweden, tax levels are much higher than in other developed nations. This may be considered as a negative by an observer upon face value. However, after an in depth examination of the benefits that come out of such a system, it can seen that this kind of approach normally yields greater levels of returns than those system that invest very little in tax benefits.

It should also be noted that in Sweden, the attitude driving its social welfare system is totally different from the one in the UK. Here, most of the decisions being made are propelled by the need to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich. There is the tendency to distribute wealth within the country through such a system and this is why there is no overall disparity between them. Also, it should be noted that the welfare system is highly affected by the type of political system within the country; it is a social democratic state.

Sweden's low childhood poverty reports are largely as a result of their good family policy systems. The following are just some of the aspects that are considered while constructing a family policy index in Sweden

• Day care coverage
• Leave for a sick child
• Separate taxation for parents
• Support during extended leave
• Paid leave

Statistics conducted on poverty levels in Sweden depict the fact that there is a negative correlation between family policy and child hood poverty. It should be noted that the higher the family policy indexes in any country, the lower the levels of childhood poverty. Sweden has a relatively high family policy index and this is the reason behind its success in tackling the issue of child hood poverty. (House of Commons, 2003)

Another aspect that has boosted the country's capacity to tackle childhood poverty is the level of female participation in employment. In Sweden, more emphasis is placed on gender equality within the welfare system. Social statistics show that whenever countries have greater numbers of male breadwinners, then poverty levels are likely to be much higher. However, this is not the case in Sweden. In the latter country, females have been empowered to take part in employment. In fact studies have been conducted to show the relationship between female employment and childhood poverty within this country.

Source

When single parents with mothers as the breadwinners are left to cater for their families, the cases of childhood poverty are usually found to be much lower.

It has been established that there is a direct link between the number of people who are living below the poverty line and the effects that a country's welfare system will have upon its people. In Sweden the number of working poor is much higher than it is in the United Kingdom. Many studies have shown that when citizens are in employment, then it is likely to find that their members will be protected from poverty. (Start, 2003)

The policies in Sweden are such that they encourage most parents to remain in employment. This is definitely a positive because it seems to have sheltered many households from the negative effects of poverty. It should also be noted that the issue of equality especially gender equality could have played a contributory role towards these low childhood poverty levels. For instance, when one analyses some of the statistics surrounding female participation in employment over the past few years in Sweden, it can be seen that the latter rates are high.

The policy system within Sweden is such that it focuses on two things; employment and family policy. This system attempts to reconcile the disparities that arise in both of these systems. Family policy in the Swedish welfare system is such that it encourages parents to participate in employment and this creates a more conducive environment for eradicating childhood poverty.

Comparison of the Swedish and UK model in relation to health care

It should be noted that in the United Kingdom, a lot of scepticism has arisen about the role of the government in dealing with poverty in general and in childhood poverty in particular. Most of the assertions made about these concerns usually revolve around the fact that the UK offers relatively low taxes compared to their counterparts in Sweden. These scepticisms also stem from the underlying attitudes and beliefs that govern the UK system. In the UK, there is the belief that people are highly responsible for their current circumstances. Consequently, those who find themselves in poverty are largely to blame. These proponents assert that poverty as a way of life can be transformed if an individual decides to work hard. (Axford, Little & Morpheth, 2003)

The latter belief is not applicable in Sweden. In Sweden, there is the belief that poverty has been brought about by inequalities within society. In other words, many people there assert that this is an aspect that cannot be avoided. Also, most of them merely find themselves in such circumstances because that is the way society workers. Social democracy is founded on the principle of restoration of social justice. The Swedes mostly believe that poverty has been brought about by greater levels of inequality.

In the United Kingdom, poverty levels have been much higher than in its counterparts. This is quite a surprise because of the fact that the British welfare system is much older than most other systems around the world. Consequently, one would expect that the country should have perfected their provisions and that this would have increased their levels of performance. However, this is not the case today; in Britain almost a fifth of its households are very poor. However, in Sweden only a tenth of their households can be regarded as very poor.

The numbers of parents who are not working in the United Kingdom are also much higher than those ones in Sweden. Consequently, there is a need to look for ways in which this can be improved through other alternatives. Many experts assert that when the number of single parent homes in any society is high, then chances are that poverty levels in those areas are also likely to be high. Statistics show that in the UK almost twenty five percent of all families that have children are on the breadline. Many people claim that reforms that have been introduced into the country are likely to eradicate this disparity in the region but one can only wait and see. (Axford, Little & Morpheth, 2003)

One of the major similarities between the United Kingdom and Sweden in terms of tackling childhood poverty is the fact that both of them apply the same technique in measurement. In other words, these two countries utilise a relative scale. Poverty levels are determined by comparing the basics which other people have and the ones which others lack. It should be noted that this is a relatively different approach especially given the fact that other developed nations such as the United States use absolute scales. When measuring poverty levels, such countries usually opt to stick to such systems.

Sweden and the United Kingdom have also registered higher poverty levels owing to the fact that in the latter region, there is a much higher level of income inequality than in Sweden. In recent years, statistics show that the poverty bar has gone much higher since sixty percent of earnings happen to fall in this area. Additionally, it has also been shown that the low pension levels in Britain could be causing these differences. If the state does not look for greater ways of tackling the issue, then it is likely that occupational pensions may keep declining and this may eventually lead to greater amounts of poverty pensioners in the future. The same scenario does not apply to Sweden as much. (Axford, Little & Morpheth, 2003)

At the beginning of instating the Swedish model. Most of the country's effort was centred on creating an institution in which all persons could benefit from the system. In other words, there was a greater focus towards the creation of a universal system. Similarly, this was the system that was applied within the United Kingdom. These two countries were also similar in that both of them were striving for universality in coverage and greater levels of coverage.

However, the latter similarity is just one of the few ones that exist between these two countries. In Sweden, there is a much greater focus on the issue of family policy than there is in the United Kingdom. In Sweden, the country has largely dwelt on encouraging mothers to go to work. Their policies are oriented towards encouraging greater gender equality. This is an aspect that is not that common in the United Kingdom.

It can be argued that Sweden is different from the United Kingdom because of the fact there are family oriented. The following features receive greater emphasis in the latter country than in Britain

• Care leaves
• Home care
• Day care

Since the Swedes are very sensitive to the needs of the family, then they have been more effective at tackling childhood poverty. This approach is quite different from the one in the United Kingdom because here, more emphasis is placed on the provision of flat benefits to all. The UK does not target a particular group that may be disadvantaged such as the females and this has increased the level of childhood poverty in the country. (Axford, Little & Morpheth, 2003)

It should also be noted that in the United Kingdom there is no particular emphasis on the issue of distributing wealth. However, this is the main focus within Sweden and other Nordic countries. In the latter countries, their policies are tailored towards provision of universal policies for child allowances and other earnings that are linked to unemployment. Consequently, because of this greater focus on the latter aspect, the poverty levels in Sweden have been greatly reduced and so have childhood poverty rates.

Conclusion

The UK represents a liberal system of welfare. No emphasis is given to policies that will support mothers at work yet they are encouraged to go back. In Sweden however, the opposite has occurred, there is greater gender equality in their system. Also, a number of child care provisions have been incorporated and this has greatly assisted them in boosting employment rates within the country. This is the reason why childhood poverty is much lower in Sweden than in the United Kingdom.

Reference

Schofield, G. & Beek, M. (2003): Always there for you; Community care Report, p 36-37, 12th-18th June

Slater, T. (2003): Birth of a children's trust; Community Care Report, p 34, 2nd July

Wintour, P. (2003): Brown seeks to nail child poverty with reforms; The Guardian, 8th July

Edwards, H. (2003): Child Protection; Nursery Management, 2, 6, 14-17

House of Commons (2003): Work and pensions committee; No. HC564, p 48

Start, S. (2003):  Child Care Standards and regulations; department for Education and Skills

Axford, N., Little, M. & Morpheth, L. (2003): problems, developments and challenges for the future in children's' services; Children and Society, 17, 3, 205-214

Swenson. P. (2002): Capitalist against markets – Welfare States in Sweden and the US; Oxford University Press