Sammendrag
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.
Vis fullstendig beskrivelse