Domestic Bliss

Swedish Social Democrats are very divided on the issue of household or domestic services (e.g. hiring someone to clean windows or perform regular cleaning services in one's home). At the moment there are no subsidies for such services although a couple of years ago Sweden experimented with a tax deductible for carpenting and other building services (mostly as a market stimulation measure). In a debate article in yesterday's DN, two local Social Democrats (Lena Micko and Mattias Ottosson) in the region of Östergötland demand tax deductions for domestic services. Not just cleaning but a wide selection of services in the home such as changing curtains or gardening should be included to make it easier for families with small children in their every-day lives or allow elderly to stay in their own homes longer. Micko and Ottosson estimate that a tax reduction could create 10,000 new jobs (the figure is based on estimates based on Finland where tax subsidies on domestic services were introduced a few years ago). I am very much in favour of their proposal.

In "Give us household services instead of moralising" they argue that Sweden (mainly the Social Democrats and the left) needs to move beyond arguments that is it wrong or obsolete to hire help in one's home. Society legitimises childcare as a perfectly normal service parents buy (of course pre-school is mainly about providing our children with education but part of the day is plain care) but if parents rather want to spend some time with their children and contract out building or cleaning, they are "punished" by having to pay a firm quite a substantial amount (unless they find someone on the black market). Moreover, the government has created so-called "plus jobs" where unemployed people are hired by the municipalities (subsidised by the government) to in effect perform domestic services for e.g. elderly.

Like Micko and Ottosson I do not believe that providing domestic services is a second class job and that it would mean going back to a situation with masters and servants. What is the difference between cleaning an office or a classroom and a private home? As long as workers are treated as professionals and have rights, I do not see a problem. It is also still a fact that women are more likely to cook, clean, etc. - in many ways women are working double - and if a tax subsidy could facilitate the lives of many women and ultimately lead to more equality in the home and in the labour market, I am all for it.

Presently there are too many regulations and means testing for domestic services. Not all people work for benevolent employers who offer domestic services as an extra benefit (which for the company is deductible). Many use "gray" or "black" services, i.e. persons that they can hire and fire arbitrarily from one day to the other.

Jonas Morian has also blogged on this topic. He thinks that the issue may even decide the outcome of the September elections, basing his argument on the fact that the party or political bloc able to gain the most trust for its ability to create jobs will win the election. A substantially decreased employment payroll tax for the services sector or a similar tax deduction would in all likelihood stimulate the private demand for white services. A political initiative that would limit the black market for these services, create more white jobs and increase tax revenues would win many votes.

Boring but Wonderful

No, she's not totally right but there's probably some truth to it :)

(Thanks to Mats Lindén for the link)

The Rapist Among Us

Every week there is one murder as a result of domestic violence in Sweden. The equivalent number in the UK is two, but the UK has six times more inhabitants (9 and 60 million respectively), indicating that we have a serious problem in Sweden (though I will not attempt to answer "why").

Lately Swedish media has given much attention to rapes and other sexual assaults as a result of the catching of a serial rapist in the northern city of Umeå. The so-called Haga man, who is on trial right now, is charged with the rapes and very violent abuse of six women from the end of the 1990s onwards. People expect rapists to be crazy weirdos that would be easily recognisable in the street, but the Haga man, to the surprise of many, was a married father of two with a permanent job and described by friends and family as a regular guy.

We need to highlight and create awareness that most rapes and sexual violence occur in the home, within families or by a person the victim knows in some way already. Only a small share of rapes is the sort of attack rape in the middle of the night. This means that most rapists are in fact seemingly “normal” men.

In a recent column in DN, Katarina Wennstam, reporter on Swedish television and author of the book “A Real Rapist”, writes about "the human being behind the demon". She says that the Haga man is a mystery and that he probably will remain so.

It certainly looks like a demon has been forced out of the shadows and has been given a face, a name, even ascribed personal characteristics. But at the same time a shudder goes through the Swedish collective consciousness. We do not see a connection between the man and the demon.

According to Wennstam, who is very critical of how the media focuses on group rapes or assault rapes, all news media give insufficient attention to the by far most common rapes, those committed in the home. The greatest risk for a woman is in the home, not in a dark park. Wennstam argues that journalists have painted a picture of rapists in too black-and-white contrasts. The perpetrator that we meet in the media is almost always a monster, a man who is not of this world. He may be a monster in some people’s eyes but

most victims see the nuances. They may know their perpetrator, even like or love him, think that he has his good sides, or [they] succeed at least to see both the monster and the human being in the same person.

Most of the women who are subject to sexual violence in the home do not report what has happened to them. If the man is well adjusted, liked and handsome, the woman has an extra barrier to overcome before she dares to report him, mainly because she doubts that anybody will believe her.

The Haga man is not the first family father to be charged with serious sexual violence. But it is the first time a man charged with rape is described as father, friend and colleague in addition to his role as the Haga man, i.e. not in the usual black-and-white extremes. It is not “us and them” anymore, but one of us. Wennstam concludes:

This is one of society’s oldest and most tenacious myth, that men rape of sudden, exploding lust and because they cannot get sex in some other way. Rape is not about sex and lust, but about power and oppression.

One Seat

Please sign so that we can scrap the European Parliament's second seat in Strasbourg. I've been there and it's a beautiful city but it costs European tax-payers too much to have their Parliamentarians move buildings every month.

Offside Rule - Women's Style

In the spirit of the World Cup but with the risk of being politically incorrect and offending members of my own sex, I give you the "offside rule" for women (I used to play football myself for many years so I have a pretty good understanding of the rule already):

You're in a shoe shop, second in the queue for the till. Behind the shop assistant on the till is a pair of shoes which you have seen and which you must have. The female shopper in front of you has seen them also and is eyeing them with desire. Both of you have forgotten your purses.

It would be rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to pay for the shoes. The shop assistant remains at the till waiting.

Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and sees your dilemma. She prepares to throw her purse to you.

If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper and buy the shoes!

At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and "whilst it is in flight" you could nip around the other shopper, catch the purse and buy the shoes!

BUT, you must always remember that until the purse has "actually been thrown", it would be plain wrong for you to be in front of the other shopper and you would be OFFSIDE!

Social Mobility - A Product of the Welfare State

In its May 27th edition, the Economist presents two research papers* on social mobility, which both confirm that European society is far less stable than America's.

The aim of the European welfare states and their redistribution of wealth and income is to rid society of class and move people up the ladder. At the same time Europeans maintain a static view of society. They dislike the extremes of wealth and poverty in America and believe that too much job mobility leads to insecurity. In addition, they are wary of capitalism and market powers. Social stability is thus desirable even if it comes for a price: inflexibility when it comes to market competition and the labour market.

Yet, in reality, European society - and especially in the Nordic countries - is far more mobile than America's. The two research papers define mobility as the difference of income between children and their parents or how long people in one income group stays there. Based on this factor, Nordic countries stand out.

The studies found that it is mobility at the bottom rather than overall social mobility that is most significant. And it is here where the difference between the Nordic countries and America is greatest. In the Nordic countries (as well as in Britain) over 70 % of the poorest childrens escaped from poverty within one generation. In America that figure is around 50 %. Furthermore, in the Nordic countries the link between the earnings of parents and children near the bottom is almost non-existent. However, when it comes social mobility at the middle-class levels the difference between Europe and America is not that big.

So what explains this situation? The first explanation is the tax and welfare systems (redistribution) in the Nordic countries.

One might expect social mobility and economic flexbility to go together - in fact, to be two sides of the same coin. But to the extent that redistribution is an explanation, it implies the opposite: that social mobility is a product of high public spending, a bit like the low incidence of poverty or longer life expectancy (on both of which Europe also does better than America). But greater public spending tends also to be associated with less economic flexibility - which is why Nordic countries have sought to limit the more arthritis-inducing features of their tax-and-spend programmes.

But redistribution is not the whole explanation. Education is the next crucial factor for social mobility, especially an education system that is less class-divided than the American one (or the rest of Europe for that matter). All four Nordic countries fair very well in international comparisons (e.g. OECD) of their education systems.

Eric Sundström provides some political commentary on these research findings and the article in the Economist (in Swedish).

* "Non-linerarities in Inter-generational Earnings Mobility" and "American Exceptionalism in a New Light" (multiple authors)

Underground Etiquette

Jonas Morian Promemorian gives tourists or others who don't travel on the Stockholm underground that often some tips on how to behave and what to avoid in order not to annoy fellow passengers. These could be equally applied to underground systems elsewhere (with some moderation).

(Free translation)

Stockholm underground system is starting to fill up by people who apparently are unfamiliar with the city's unwritten rules. Since I like tourism, but hate lack of respect for social codes, I give you - in an eagerly awaited and updated repeat from June 2005 - some tips for you who visit our beautiful capital:

1. One cannot swipe all sorts of tickets through the automatic barriers and expect them to open. They only work with tickets with a magnetic stripe.
2. Find out where you are going before approaching the ticket booth. Admittedly staff are expected to provide tips on nice sites in Stockholm and how you can get there with the underground and other means of public transportation, but striking up a long conversation is not appreciated by those queueing behind you.
3. On the escalators people walk to the left. Preferably in a fast pace. You stand to the right - but we prefer that you still move forward albeit in a slower pace than in the left lane.
4. When you are at the top of the escalator (or at the bottom for that matter) keep on going in the same direction. If you are unsure where you are going, yield immediately and let the people behind you pass. Don't stop and look around you. Observ that this rule applies equally to lifts and underground trains.
5. Respect your co-passengers' personal spheres. In plain terms: don't stand too close. Sure, it can be difficult in rush hour on a full train, but always try to at least avoid body contact.
6. It is good to keep a low, relaxed profile. Your fellow passengers are not potential new friends. On the other hand it is of course alright to ask for directions. But don't count on Stockholmers to understand what you mean if you ask for track or line numbers.
7. On the underground maps the different lines are marked in blue, green and red. This has nowadays no direct correlation with the colour of the actual underground car. You don't need to sit and wait for a red train to be certain that the train really to Ropsten really takes you to Ropsten.
8. Occupy one seat on the underground. Your bag does not need its own seat. If you choose to stand instead of sitting, take off your backpack. Okay, many Stockholmers don't always follow this rule but I promise that we appreciate you more if you do.
9. Let people get off the train before you try to get on. See also the comment to rule 8.

Finally Promemorian points us to this site on underground etiquette in London for further inspiration.

From Honour Killings to Suicides

As part of its bid to meet EU membership requirements, Turkey in 2005 approved new legislation making "honour killings" - the practice of men killing their female relatives for perceived immoral behaviour - punishable by life in prison. So far so good. However, growing numbers of female suicides raise suspicion that women are now being forced or pressured by relatives to kill themselves instead. An estimated 70 women die in honour killings in Turkey every year, mostly in the south-east, the country's poorest and most conservative region, and now suicides seem to reach similar numbers. The real figure may be higher as in remote villages, deaths (or births) are not always recorded. In a survey conducted in this region in 2005, 40 % of males said a women guilty of adultery should be killed. And violence against women is accepted across Turkey. Domestic violence is considered a family matter.

Hopefully the prospect of future EU membership will create enough political willpower to enforce further legislation and lasting positive change.

(Earlier post about Turkey)

The Status Syndrome

I went to a very interesting book launch and seminar on 30 May. Sir Michael Marmot presented his book The Status Syndrome - How our social position affects our health and life expectancy.

Genes, lifestyle and access to healthcare are important for health, but other factors matter even more; how we live in society and what our situation at work is like. Michael Marmot has examined the relation between status and health - the status syndrome - and highlights the importance of e.g. education, income, parents' background and occupation. Based on three decades of research he presents evidence for how subtle differences in social position can lead to important differences in health and life expectancy.

The Status Syndrome is not about illness for the poor and good health for everybody else, but about a continuous variation, a so-called health gradient. Already in the 1970s Marmot studied British civil servants and found that illness frequency and mortality increased the further down the social ladder he looked. The same pattern is found all around the world, including in Sweden. (Marmot also studied baboons and found a similar pattern of mortality depending on dominance or subordinance.) In Washington D.C. the average life expectancy between a black person in the inner city is over 20 years shorter than a rich white person 15 metro stops away in Maryland. In the industrialised countries we think that we have solved everything, but we have huge inequalities in health. The so-called Swedish paradox is that Sweden has the widest inequalities in health in Europe (except in absolute terms), e.g. the mortality of manual v. non-manual labour.

Over a certain level of resources it is what people have in comparison to others that is decisive for their health. Money by itself does not matter - it is what you can do with the money relative to other people that matters. According to Marmot's research people prefer relative standing rather than more money in absolute terms. One anecdote from Marmot's studies is that Oscar winners on average live four years longer than colleagues who have been "just" nominated. Another example is that mortality is higher among people with a Masters than among people with a Doctorate.

Supporting relations in the private sphere and the degree of trust and social solidarity in the society are central dimensions for health. Control, social participation and health are fundamental needs that are linked. As people are different, inequalities will always exist, but the scope of their effects on health can be controlled according to Marmot. If we understand the link between inequalities and health, we can do something about it.

** Sir Michael Marmot is Professor in Epidemiology and Public Health at UCL and Head of the International Centre for Health and Society. He is also Chairman of the WHO's Global Commission on Social Determinants of Health. In 2004 he was awarded the Balzan Prize in epidemiology and in 2000 he was knighted for his efforts within epidemiology and the understanding of inequalities in health.

Congestion Charge Update 2

It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could pay the charge...and not actually try and skive out of it like a chiselling little crook.

Ken Livingstone, London's Mayor, on the US embassy's refusal to pay the toll levied on cars driven in central London. Some foreign 50 embassies say they are exempt under the international diplomatic law.

In Stockholm this is not an issue since the congestion is theoretically and legally a tax, which diplomatic services are automatically exempted from. Considering the small sums involved in the scheme of things, it is very disappointing that the US embassy in London doesn't just pay.

Since my last update, a poll has shown that Stockholmers are very much in favour of the trial and that the reduction of traffic seems to be constant.

For April:

• Car traffic in central Stockholm was 22 % lower than the same period in 2005
• Traffic on Essingeleden (bypass) has increased 4-5 % compared to 2005
• The number of public transport passengers to and from the inner city increased with 65,000 which is equivalent to 30,000 more passengers per day compared to April 2005

The recent Sifo poll showed that 6 out of 10 people are in favour of permanent congestion charges although to a even more recent survey published today 60 % are against the charge. So who knows! Will be interesting to see May's traffic results and further polls on the issue.