Why It Is Bad to Be Kind. Educating Refugees to Life in the Welfare State: A Case Study from Norway

In Norway, as elsewhere in Europe, the aim of policy‐making is to ensure the integration of immigrants into mainstream society. This paper focuses on one of the most concrete and practical measures Norwegian authorities have ever taken in this field, namely the recent establishment of a compulsory two‐year introduction programme for newly arrived refugees. This is an activation‐style programme involving both a financial and an educational component, where out‐payments depend on participation in a full‐time training programme aimed at enabling participants to become self‐sufficient members of Norwegian society. In the first part of the paper the establishment of this policy is located within a broader context of integration crisis, before it moves on to look more specifically at the background for the programme and the problems it is set up to address. The latter part of the paper addresses the implementation of the introduction programmes in one medium‐sized Norwegian city. The local discourse here is one of before and after, where the failings of previous policies have been overcome and new and productive practices have been established. Connections can be made between public and political discourses on integration crisis and the local discourses of implementation through the notion of kindness and the idea that kindness has hampered the integration efforts of the state. Herein lies a story not only about views on immigrants and diversity, but also about how immigration has challenged the Norwegian welfare state model.     

Change and Resilience in Welfare State Policy. The Politics of Sickness Insurance in Norway and Sweden

This article compares the processes of reforming sickness insurance in Norway and Sweden. Despite the many similarities between the Norwegian and Swedish welfare states, they have taken different paths when it comes to reforming their sickness insurance systems. In the period between 1990 and 2010 Sweden changed its wage replacement levels and levels of employer financing several times, while in Norway they remain basically unchanged since 1978, notwithstanding many reform initiatives by political authorities. Why have the two cases evolved so differently? We address this question by using Peter Starke's review of the retrenchment literature which outlines four major strands of theorizing the politics of welfare reform: neo‐functionalism, conflict theories, institutionalist theories and discourse theory. Rather than treating these as providing competing explanations, the article suggests that elements from all perspectives bring insights to the case. The need for policy reform must always be communicated in a way that can be understood and approved in order to materialize as actual policy change. But discursive change and apparently seductive frames will not always be enough. This comparative analysis illustrates that the chance of success for new frames or discourses depends on the institutional, political and functional context into which they are inserted. Similar attempts at framing the need for reform and cutbacks have had different effects in the two countries depending on the character of the counter forces and extant frames reformers are up against. On the other hand, over time discourses and frames also shape institutions and political relations.     

Build Your Own Pension: Framing Pension Reform and Choice in Newspapers

Recent pension reforms in Norway mean that old-age pensions to a greater extent are a function of adaptations made and decisions made throughout the lifetime. How much you work, who you work for, when you retire, and how you invest will influence your standard of living as an old-age pensioner. This article investigates one important source of information about retirement and pension, namely service journalism in main national newspapers. How is the issue of pension framed in these articles? And what kind of advice is presented by which kind of actors? Findings indicate that service journalism is dominated by pension industry sources, and old-age pension is framed as a function of individual investment choices rather than as citizens’ rights.     

Dealing with the Dilemmas: Integration at the Street‐level in Norway

In Norway, as elsewhere in Europe, the debates about immigration, increasing cultural diversity and the need for integration, are heated and polarised. For welfare state workers and institutions, the perceived task and challenge of integration has to a large extent been to both provide space for cultural diversity and to promote social equality through participation in the labour market, education, and civil society. Amidst all this ongoing debate, a large number of people deal with these issues as a part of their daily work. This paper focuses on the dilemmas such street‐level bureaucrats, or diversity workers, encounter in their work with refugees, immigrants and their children. Most of all, it explores the strategies they have developed to handle such situations. Street‐level bureaucrats have a range of strategies to get around integration dilemmas, which are presented here as five distinct response repertoires. The analytical construction of these repertoires is useful because it provides us with a tool to describe and understand what is going on when policies are translated into institutional practices. It shows how public sector employees are handling the everyday dilemmas that policy does not provide the solutions for. Finally, this analysis of repertoires can also be useful in thinking normatively about what kinds of strategies particular institutions ought to nurture and how they can achieve this.