| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Scarpa, Simone, 1976-, et al.
(författare)
-
Is migration bad for welfare? : reconfigurations of welfare, labour and citizenship in Sweden
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Inequalitities and migration. - Lund : Studentlitteratur AB. - 9789144116945 ; , s. 31-52
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The aim of this chapter is to challenge an axiomatic assumption made in current public debates, namely that the sustainability of the welfare state in an age of globalization requires the imposition of limits on immigration. With a particular focus on Sweden and recent changes of Swedish welfare policy, the chapter shows how the current crisis of the Swedish welfare model has in fact haunted this model for decades. The argument presented is that the socially-integrative capacities of the Swedish model had been compromised well before the start of the post-2015 refugee crisis in Europe. The argument made is that it was not the scale of immigration that made the Swedish welfare state unsustainable. Rather, it is the austerity-driven retrenchment of the Swedish welfare state that, in the past quarter of a century, has steadily undermined the capacity of the welfare model to offer emancipatory and non-discriminatory pathways of incorporation to immigrants. With the neoliberal reforms implemented since the early 1990s, the current reality in Sweden is that of deepening, and increasingly ethnically tinged, class divisions and long-term social exclusion of sizeable population groups from substantial citizenship rights.
|
|
| 6. |
- Scarpa, Simone, 1976-, et al.
(författare)
-
Is migration bad for welfare? : Reconfigurations of welfare, labour and citizenship in Sweden
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Inequalities and migration. - Lund : Studentlitteratur AB. - 9789144116945 ; , s. 31-52
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this chapter is to challenge an axiomatic assumption made in current public debates – namely, that the sustainability of the welfare state in an age of globalisation requires the imposition of limits on immigration. With a particular focus on Sweden and recent changes in Swedish welfare policy, the chapter shows how the current crisis of the Swedish welfare model has, in fact, haunted this model for decades. The argument presented is that the socially integrative capacities of the Swedish model had been compromised well beforethe start of the post-2015 refugee crisis in Europe but that it is not the scale of immigration that made the Swedish welfare state unsustainable. Rather, it is the austerity-driven retrenchment of the Swedish welfare state which, in the past quarter of a century, has steadily undermined the capacity of the welfare model to offer emancipatory and non-discriminatory pathways of incorporation to immigrants. With the neoliberal reforms implemented since the early 1990s, the current reality in Sweden is that of deepening, and increasingly ethnically tinged, class divisions and the long-term social exclusion of sizeable population groups from substantial citizenship rights.
|
|
| 7. |
- Stretmo, Live, 1977
(författare)
-
"Different children or a case of any other child?" Constructions of unaccompanied children in welfare service provision
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Trygged, S and Righard, E (2019) Inequalities and Migration – Challenges for the Swedish welfare state. - Lund : Studentlitteratur. - 9789144116945 ; , s. 153-173
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This chapter discusses how Swedish service providers talk about unaccompanied minors as a specific group of children and how these constructions may affect the way in which the service providers understand their work and obligations in regard to these children and youth. Whether the unaccompanied minors are seen as somewhat problematic youngsters or as any other child or young person clearly affects which aid or intervention is deemed legitimate. These are important findings as they point to the need to address and reflect on our underlying categorisations – especially as categorisations might have real consequences and implications for unaccompanied children.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
