HEALTH INEQUALITIES AND INCOME INEQUALITY IN · PDF fileHEALTH INEQUALITIES AND INCOME INEQUALITY IN FINLAND ... Foreword by the former Minister of Culture, MD Claes ... and social

8/6/13

1

HEALTH INEQUALITIES AND INCOME INEQUALITY

IN FINLAND

Institutions in Context: Inequality School of Social Sciences and Humanities University of Tampere, Finland, June 3-9, 2013 Organized and Hosted by the North American Studies Program of the University of Tampere

1

Juha Mikkonen, mikkonen [at] yorku.ca PhD Candidate, York University, Canada

2

8/6/13

2

3

4

8/6/13

3

5

6

8/6/13

4

1. INCOME INEQUALITY AND POVERTY § Comparative perspective § National perspective

2. HEALTH INEQUALITIES

§ Level of health inequalities in Finland § Policy documents on health inequalities

3. POLITICS OF POVERTY REDUCTION § Finnish political parties and poverty reduction § Future prospects

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

7

 Mikkonen, J. (2012). Finnish experiences. In D. Raphael (Ed.), Tackling health inequalities: Lessons from international experiences (pp. 155-184). Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/q5yva7g

 Mikkonen, J. (2013). The politics of poverty in Finland. Social Alternatives , 32(1), 24-30. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/llj399e

 Mikkonen, J. (forthcoming). Coping strategies among marginalized youth in Finland. In A.-L. Matthies & L. Uggerhöj (Eds.), Participation, marginalization and welfare services – concepts, politics and practices across European countries. Ashgate, UK. (November, 2013)

8

ADDITIONAL SOURCES

8/6/13

5

Finnish political parties and poverty reduction Future prospects

9

Books in Finnish Isola, A-M., Larivaara, M., & Mikkonen, J. (Eds.) (2007). Arkipäivän kokemuksia köyhyydestä. [Everyday Experiences of Poverty, an anthology]. Foreword by Dr. Ilkka Taipale. Keuruu: Avain. Available at http://www.koyhyyskirjoitukset.org/koyhyyskirja.pdf [349 pages] Mikkonen, J., & Typpö, A. (Eds.) (2009). Rikas runo – sanoja köyhyydestä [Rich/Wealthy Poems; an anthology of poems about poverty]. Foreword by the former Minister of Culture, MD Claes Andersson. Helsinki: Avain. [170 pages] Mikkonen, J. (2012). Syrjäytyä vai selviytyä? Nuorten pienituloisuuden syitä, seurauksia ja arjen selviytymiskeinoja [To cope or to marginalize? The experiences of low-income youth in Finland]. European Anti-Poverty Network Finland. Helsinki: Erweko. Available at: http://www.koyhyyskirjoitukset.org/syrjaytya_vai_selviytya.pdf

 Finland belongs to the group of Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland) § The same commitment to provide basic security, free

education, and social and health services for everyone regardless of income and wealth.

 Finland has been able to attain high levels of economic and social performance despite: § Relatively high tax rate § Generous social benefits § Extensive public services § Universal policies including tax-funded higher education

(incl. Master’s and PhD degrees)

10

BACKGROUND: THE NORDIC MODEL

8/6/13

6

 Finnish society has strived to combine social equality with economic competitiveness. § In 2007, Finland was the seventh most equal of 30

most developed OECD countries in terms of income disparities (OECD, 2008).

 In terms of economic performance, the World

Economic Forum (WEF) ranks Finland as the third most competitive economy in the world (Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013).

11

1. INCOME INEQUALITY AND POVERTY

12

The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 | 13

1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013

Table 3: The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013 rankings and 2011–2012 comparisons

Rank among Score GCI 2011–2012 GCI 2011–2012 Country/Economy Rank/144 (1–7) sample rank

Switzerland 1 5.72 1 1Singapore 2 5.67 2 2Finland 3 5.55 3 4Sweden 4 5.53 4 3Netherlands 5 5.50 5 7Germany 6 5.48 6 6United States 7 5.47 7 5United Kingdom 8 5.45 8 10Hong Kong SAR 9 5.41 9 11Japan 10 5.40 10 9Qatar 11 5.38 11 14Denmark 12 5.29 12 8Taiwan, China 13 5.28 13 13Canada 14 5.27 14 12Norway 15 5.27 15 16Austria 16 5.22 16 19Belgium 17 5.21 17 15Saudi Arabia 18 5.19 18 17Korea, Rep. 19 5.12 19 24Australia 20 5.12 20 20France 21 5.11 21 18Luxembourg 22 5.09 22 23New Zealand 23 5.09 23 25United Arab Emirates 24 5.07 24 27Malaysia 25 5.06 25 21Israel 26 5.02 26 22Ireland 27 4.91 27 29Brunei Darussalam 28 4.87 28 28China 29 4.83 29 26Iceland 30 4.74 30 30Puerto Rico 31 4.67 31 35Oman 32 4.65 32 32Chile 33 4.65 33 31Estonia 34 4.64 34 33Bahrain 35 4.63 35 37Spain 36 4.60 36 36Kuwait 37 4.56 37 34Thailand 38 4.52 38 39Czech Republic 39 4.51 39 38Panama 40 4.49 40 49Poland 41 4.46 41 41Italy 42 4.46 42 43Turkey 43 4.45 43 59Barbados 44 4.42 44 42Lithuania 45 4.41 45 44Azerbaijan 46 4.41 46 55Malta 47 4.41 47 51Brazil 48 4.40 48 53Portugal 49 4.40 49 45Indonesia 50 4.40 50 46Kazakhstan 51 4.38 51 72South Africa 52 4.37 52 50Mexico 53 4.36 53 58Mauritius 54 4.35 54 54Latvia 55 4.35 55 64Slovenia 56 4.34 56 57Costa Rica 57 4.34 57 61Cyprus 58 4.32 58 47India 59 4.32 59 56Hungary 60 4.30 60 48Peru 61 4.28 61 67Bulgaria 62 4.27 62 74Rwanda 63 4.24 63 70Jordan 64 4.23 64 71Philippines 65 4.23 65 75Iran, Islamic Rep. 66 4.22 66 62Russian Federation 67 4.20 67 66Sri Lanka 68 4.19 68 52Colombia 69 4.18 69 68Morocco 70 4.15 70 73Slovak Republic 71 4.14 71 69Montenegro 72 4.14 72 60

Rank among Score GCI 2011–2012 GCI 2011–2012 Country/Economy Rank/144 (1–7) sample rank

Ukraine 73 4.14 73 82Uruguay 74 4.13 74 63Vietnam 75 4.11 75 65Seychelles 76 4.10 n/a n/aGeorgia 77 4.07 76 88Romania 78 4.07 77 77Botswana 79 4.06 78 80Macedonia, FYR 80 4.04 79 79Croatia 81 4.04 80 76Armenia 82 4.02 81 92Guatemala 83 4.01 82 84Trinidad and Tobago 84 4.01 83 81Cambodia 85 4.01 84 97Ecuador 86 3.94 85 101Moldova 87 3.94 86 93Bosnia and Herzegovina 88 3.93 87 100Albania 89 3.91 88 78Honduras 90 3.88 89 86Lebanon 91 3.88 90 89Namibia 92 3.88 91 83Mongolia 93 3.87 92 96Argentina 94 3.87 93 85Serbia 95 3.87 94 95Greece 96 3.86 95 90Jamaica 97 3.84 96 107Gambia, The 98 3.83 97 99Gabon 99 3.82 n/a n/aTajikistan 100 3.80 98 105El Salvador 101 3.80 99 91Zambia 102 3.80 100 113Ghana 103 3.79 101 114Bolivia 104 3.78 102 103Dominican Republic 105 3.77 103 110Kenya 106 3.75 104 102Egypt 107 3.73 105 94Nicaragua 108 3.73 106 115Guyana 109 3.73 107 109Algeria 110 3.72 108 87Liberia 111 3.71 n/a n/aCameroon 112 3.69 109 116Libya 113 3.68 n/a n/aSuriname 114 3.68 110 112Nigeria 115 3.67 111 127Paraguay 116 3.67 112 122Senegal 117 3.66 113 111Bangladesh 118 3.65 114 108Benin 119 3.61 115 104Tanzania 120 3.60 116 120Ethiopia 121 3.55 117 106Cape Verde 122 3.55 118 119Uganda 123 3.53 119 121Pakistan 124 3.52 120 118Nepal 125 3.49 121 125Venezuela 126 3.46 122 124Kyrgyz Republic 127 3.44 123 126Mali 128 3.43 124 128Malawi 129 3.38 125 117Madagascar 130 3.38 126 130Côte d’Ivoire 131 3.36 127 129Zimbabwe 132 3.34 128 132Burkina Faso 133 3.34 129 136Mauritania 134 3.32 130 137Swaziland 135 3.28 131 134Timor-Leste 136 3.27 132 131Lesotho 137 3.19 133 135Mozambique 138 3.17 134 133Chad 139 3.05 135 142Yemen 140 2.97 136 138Guinea 141 2.90 n/a n/aHaiti 142 2.90 137 141Sierra Leone 143 2.82 n/a n/aBurundi 144 2.78 138 140

GCI 2012–2013 GCI 2012–2013

The Global Competitiveness Index 2012–2013 rankings (12 different sets of indicators)

(Schwab, 2012)

8/6/13

7

  One of the central debates during the past few years has been the relation of income inequality to health and well-being (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2006, 2009).

  Finland has been a very equal country in terms of income distribution, but, as in many Western developed nations, income inequality has risen in Finland.

  Finnish society began to experience deepening socio-economic differences and income inequality after the recession of the 1990s.

  During the past few decades, the disposable income of Finnish wage earners has increased, but, at the same time, the level of many minimum social benefits has stagnated (Moisio et al., 2011). 13

INCOME INEQUALITY I

14 0.244

0.246

0.249

0.252

0.256

0.26

0.261

0.262

0.267

0.269

0.27

0.286

0.288

0.303

0.305

0.31

0.319

0.319

0.32

0.334

0.337

0.338

0.341

0.344

0.376

0.38

0.466

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Iceland

Slovenia

Norway

Denmark

Czech Republic

Finland

Slovak Republic

Belgium

Austria

Sweden

Luxembourg

Germany

Netherlands

France

Poland

Korea

Estonia

Italy

Canada

Australia

Greece

Spain

United Kingdom

Portugal

Israel

United States

Mexico

Gini coefficients in 2010 (at disposable income, post taxes and transfers) (http://stats.oecd.org/, May 2013)

OECD average

8/6/13

8

  In Finland, increases in income have concentrated on the highest income groups as the redistributive effect of taxes and transfers has decreased.

  However, income inequality in Finland (.26) is still much lower

than in many other OECD countries, which had an average Gini coefficient of .31 in the mid-2000s (http://stats.oecd.org).

§ OECD-20 = 0.316 § OECD-34 = 0.314

15

INCOME INEQUALITY II

Figure 5. Finnish political parties currently represented in the parliament and their share of votes in the parliamentary election held on April 17, 2011 (Statistics Finland, 2011).

16

!"##"$%&'()*+"*#,*$& -./

Regardless of these recent changes, income inequality in Finland is still below the average OECD Gini coe! cient of .31 in the mid-2000s (OECD, 2008, 51). " e growth of Finnish income inequality is caused largely by the fact that minimum social and unemployment bene-# ts in Finland have not been raised since the mid-1990s, and bene# ts have fallen behind the general wage trend (Moisio, 2006; Moisio et al., 2011). Table 6.3 shows average household dis-posable income by four speci# c income deciles between 1995 and 2010. " e highest-earning decile has experienced a 66 percent increase in income from $54,751 to $91,115, whereas the lowest-earning decile’s increase has been only 12 percent from $9,759 to $10,943 (Statistics Finland, 2011b).

Along with income inequality, the level of relative poverty has risen rapidly in Finland. Accord-ing to Statistics Finland (2009), in 1996 only 8.5 percent of the Finnish population lived below the at-risk-of-poverty line, which is set at 60 percent of median equivalized income (Eurostat,

!"#$%&'()*+,,+-.&/01-%.0$2345%$$+,6&7,+8-9&:;%<"6%&4+-=0-"#$%&>,?0@%&+,&A1<0-&#B&>,?0@%&4%?+$%C&DEEFGHIDI

Year 1st Income Decile (lowest

income)

4th Income Decile

7th Income Decile

10th Income Decile (highest

income)1995 9759 22 007 30 363 54 7511996 9780 21 937 30 765 55 1751997 9769 22 481 31 968 60 7171998 9764 22 667 32 526 64 9881999 9815 22 991 33 121 72 6692000 9706 23 132 33 544 78 1232001 9897 23 600 34 215 73 2132002 10 072 24 056 34 851 74 3122003 10 142 24 462 35 653 77 0822004 10 267 25 301 37 069 83 7092005 10 310 25 626 37 629 83 9622006 10 371 26 116 38 539 87 5142007 10 494 26 921 39 722 94 0872008 10 663 27 118 40 022 89 5642009 10 798 27 691 40 480 86 8152010 10 943 27 822 41 011 91 115

Source: Statistics Finland (2011b), Income distribution statistics, PX-Web databases, retrieved from: http://tilastokeskus.# /tup/tilastotietokannat/index_en.html.

8/6/13

9

  The classic definition of relative deprivation has been given by renowned British sociologist Peter Townsend (Townsend, 1993):

"People are relatively deprived if they cannot obtain, at all or sufficiently, the conditions of life - that is, the diets, amenities, standards and services - which allow them to play the roles, participate in the relationships and follow the customary behaviour which is expected of them by virtue of their membership of society. - - If they lack or are denied resources to obtain access to these conditions of life and so fulfill membership of society they may be said to be in poverty.” (Townsend, 1993, p. 36)

17

THE CONCEPT OF RELATIVE DEPRIVATION

 The eradication of absolute poverty has been one of the most important achievements of well-developed welfare states.

 In Europe, poverty is measured with relative indicators. § Relative poverty vs. absolute poverty

 According to the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat), people whose incomes fall 60% below the median income are defined to be at risk of poverty.

18

RELATIVE POVERTY I

8/6/13

10

 Nordic policy measures have not been aimed

specifically at poverty reduction but to provide protection to the citizens against social risks (e.g. sickness, unemployment) that can lead to poverty.

 The relative poverty rates in the Nordic countries are among the lowest in cross-national comparisons (UNICEF 2012; OECD 2011b).

 Poverty rates in Finland are relatively low, but have

increased since the recession of the 1990s (OECD, 2008).

19

RELATIVE POVERTY II


20

Norway France Germany Finland Sweden OECD - Average

United Kingdom

Canada Australia United States

Mid-80s 12.2 13.3 12 10.7 7.3 16.1 17.4 18.2 0 23.8

Mid-90s 13.4 14.1 12.7 9.1 7.9 16.6 19.3 17.1 20.8 23.8

Mid-2000s 12.4 13.1 14.7 13.4 11.4 17.5 17.9 18.8 20.9 23.8

Late-2000s 13.3 13.5 14.8 15.6 16.4 17.8 18.4 19.4 21.7 24.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Pove

rty ra

te (%

)

Poverty rates after taxes and transfers in selected OECD countries (Incomes below 60% of the current median income)

8/6/13

11


21

!"#$%&'(&)*+,%)$-*.!"#$%!&'!!(#!)*!'+)&!!!!!!!/0

,-$./$-01#23! 4-356! #2!789:;<,!'++=! 6-0-! 3>#?! 0>-0!65@A1B-01#2! A-053! C#A!7/A#@5-2!.>1$6A52! D-E56!)! 0#!)FG!$1B12E!12!312E$59@-A520!C-H1$153!-A5!0>5!$#?530!12!(#A?-I!DJ%)KG*! :?5652! DJ%&KG*! ;.5$-26! DJ%JKG*! -26! L12$-26!DF%MKG! D8(;,7L!'+)'G%!L#A!-!?165A! .#H@-A13#2*! .>1$6!@#B5A0I!A-053!12!65B5$#@56!.#/20A153!-A5!$13056!12!N-4$5!

:#/A.5O! 8(;,7L! '+)'%! P5-3/A12E! ,>1$6! Q#B5A0IO! (5?!<5-E/5!N-4$53!#C!,>1$6!Q#B5A0I!12!0>5!R#A$6S3!T1.>!,#/20A153%!;22#.5201! T535-A.>! ,520A5*! T5@#A0! ,-A6! )+*! ;22#.5201!T535-A.>!,520A5*!L$#A52.5

1%2&*'3%!,>1$6!Q#B5A0I!4I!U1CC5A520!T5$-01B5!Q#B5A0I<1253!12!0>5!<-05!'+++3

,#/20AI Q#B5A0I!$5B5$!-0!F+K

Q#B5A0I!$5B5$!-0!V+K

Q#B5A0I!$5B5$!-0!J+K

(#A?-I ))%& F%) &%)

L12$-26 ))%= V%& )%V

:?5652 )'%W W%& &%W

X5AH-2I )J%= M%V J%F

LA-2.5 )F%M M%M &%W

Y/30A-$1- )W%F )+%= J%&

821056!Z12E6#H

'+%M )'%) V%F

,-2-6- ')%= )&%& W%&

821056!:0-053

&)%) '&%) )F%F

:#/A.5O!:0-01301.3!L12$-26!'+)'-J%!!

)%!N>5!H#30!@$-/314$5!5[@$-2-01#2!C#A!$#?!.>1$6!@#B5A0I!A-053! 13! 0>-0! 0>535!(#A61.! .#/20A153! @A#B165! E525A#/3!

6/-$95-A25A!C-H1$I!@#$1.153!0#!3/@@#[email protected]@-01#2!12!0>5!$-4#/A!C#A.5!DZ-2E-3!\!Q-$H5!'++=G%

4%)$",%&'5*+.6*#)$-*.'",'5"-*+)7

Y..#A612E! 0#! 0>5! :0-01301.-$! ]CC1.5! #C! 0>5! 7/A#@5-2!,#HH/210153!D7/A#30-0G*!@5#@$5!?>#35!12.#H53!C-$$!F+K!

@#B5A0I!D7/A#30-0!'++=G%!;2!'+)+*!)&%&K!#C!0>5!L12213>!@#@/$-01#2!$1B56!45$#?!0>5!@#B5A0I!$125!-0!F+K!#C!H561-2!5^/1B-$1356!12.#H5!D:0-01301.3!L12$-26!'+)'4G%!Y!L12213>!

1C!>13!#A!>5A!H#20>$I!12.#H5!?-3!$533!0>-2!)*''M!7/A#3!D1%5%!0>5!$#?912.#H5!$1H10!@5A!.#23/H@01#2!/210!?-3!)J*WJ)!7/A#3!@5A!I5-A!12!'+)+G%

_50?552!'++W9'+)+*! 0>5!L12213>!-09A13`9#C9@#B5A0I!A-05!

#C! $#?912.#H5!5-A25A3! 0#! 45! -A#/26! W++*+++! .101a523!D:0-01301.3!L12$-26!'+)'6G%!N>5!$5B5$!#C!A5$-01B5!@#B5A0I!A#35!A-@16$I!-$#2E!?10>!12.A5-356!12.#H5!125^/-$10I!CA#H!0>5! )==+3! 0#! 0>5! $-059'+++3%!b#?5B5A*! 0>5! -09A13`9#C9@#B5A0I! A-05!616!2#0! 12.A5-35! 12!'++=*!-26! 12!'+)+! 0>5!/@?-A6!0A526!.#2012/56!DL1E/A5!'G%

8$9:+*'/;!Q5A.520-E5!#C!Q5#@$5!-09T13`9#C9Q#B5A0I!12!L12$-26!)==+9'+)+O!V+K!-26!F+K!#C!0>5!H561-2!5^/1B-$520!12.#H5!#C!-$$!>#/35>#$63


22

Unemployed Students Others w/o

employment Pensioners

Under 16 years old

Self-employed

Wage-earners

Percentage 45.8 30.1 26 15.2 12.5 12.4 3.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Percentage of Finnish Citizens At-Risk-of-Poverty in Various Socioeconomic Groups in 2010

Source: Statistics Finland. 2012c Pienituloisuus henkilön sosioekonomisen aseman mukaan [Low Income Rate by a Person's Socioeconomic Position. Income Distribution Statistics in 2010], Statistics Finland, Helsinki<http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/tjt/2010/02/ tjt_2010_02_2012-01-25_kat_004_fi.html>

8/6/13

12

 What are health inequalities?

§ Systematic differences in health status between socioeconomic groups (income, education, and occupation)

§ Socioeconomic gradient

 The current Finnish policy: Remedying health disadvantage and reducing health gradients.

23

2. HEALTH INEQUALITIES

The primary factors that shape the health are not medical treatments or lifestyle choices but rather the living conditions people experience. > The social determinants of health.

§ WHO. (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Final report. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/

§ Mikkonen, J., & Raphael, D. (2010). Social determinants of health: The Canadian facts. Toronto: York University School of Health Policy and Management. http://thecanadianfacts.org/

24

HEALTH IS NOT ONLY HEALTH CARE

8/6/13

13

  Improving the population health requires we think about health and its determinants in a more sophisticated manner than has been the case to date.

1 . Income and Income Distribution 2. Education 3. Unemployment and Job Security 4. Employment and Working Conditions 5. Early Childhood Development 6. Food Insecurity 7. Housing 8. Social Exclusion 9. Social Safety Network 10. Health Services 11. Aboriginal Status 12. Gender 13. Race 14. Disability

25

14 SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH

  The overall population health has improved but inequalities in mortality between socio-economic groups in the highest and the lowest income quintiles have increased in Finland.

  The difference in mortality rates of Finnish men as high as 12.5 years between the highest and the lowest income deciles in 2007 (Tarkiainen, Martikainen, Laaksonen & Valkonen, 2011).

  The researchers have interpreted these findings to reflect the increased life expectancy among the men in the highest income quintile as well as increased social exclusion and alcohol use among the men in the lowest income quintiles.

  The role of increased income inequality? 26

HEALTH INEQUALITIES: MORTALITY

8/6/13

14


27

!"#$ %&'()*+,$-.&)/0$1+.23&)*/*.4

!"#$%&'()*+",&'-./&012304'5,'6&3'237'859&3':#&7';<'=4'>50"2?'@%5$/'"3'*AB;CDEE<'FGH%&&IJ&2%'65K"3#':K&%2#&LM

52

50

48

46

44

42

40

38

36

341984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Women

Men

Upper white-collar workers

Upper white-collar workers

Lower white-collar workers

Lower white-collar workers

Blue-collar workers

Blue-collar workers

Farmers

FarmersAge

Year

lack of comparable statistical data does not allow these results to be put in an international per-spective. ! e researchers have interpreted these " ndings to re# ect the increased life expectancy among the men in the highest income quintile as well as increased social exclusion and alcohol use among the men in the lowest income quintiles (Tarkiainen et al., 2011).

N&2?1H'O3&P$2?"1"&L'2L'623",&L1&7'"3'65%="7"14Relative socio-economic health di$ erences can be observed in many chronic illnesses, including the prevalence of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and musculoskeletal disorders (Palosuo et al., 2009). ! e general pattern is that the overall morbidity is higher in lower socio-economic

Source: Valkonen, T., Ahonen, H., Martikainen, P., & Remes, H. (2009). Socio-economic differences in mortality. In H. Palosuo, S. Koskinen, E. Lahelma, E. Kostiainen, R. Prättälä, T. Martelin, A. Ostamo, I. Keskimäki, M. Sihto, E. Linnanmäki & K. Talala (Eds.), Health inequalities in Finland: Trends in socioeconomic health differences 1980–2005 (pp. 40–60). Helsinki: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health Publications.

 The general pattern is that the overall morbidity is higher in lower socio-economic groups.

 Relative socio-economic health differences can be observed in many chronic illnesses, including the prevalence of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and musculoskeletal disorders (Palosuo et al., 2009)

 The lowest socio-economic groups are 50 percent more

likely than the highest socio-economic groups to experience long-term illnesses (Palosuo et al., 2009).

28

HEALTH INEQUALITIES: MORBIDITY I

8/6/13

15

  Finnish men and women in the lower education groups reported poorer self-rated health than in the higher education groups.

  A similar pattern was also present when health dif ferences were observed by labour market status, and the unemployed consistently reported their health as lower than the employed population.

  The percentage of people who felt that their health is below the average was 40–50 percent in the lowest education group as compared to 20–30 percent in the highest education group (Rahkonen et al., 2009).

29

HEALTH INEQUALITIES: MORBIDITY II

30

Margaret Whitehead's Action Spectrum: Various degrees of commitment to reduce social inequalities in health (Whitehead, 1998).

The U.S.?

The UK?

Nordic countries?

8/6/13

16

  Finnish governments have produced numerous policy papers and strategies that emphasize tackling inequalities in health during the past decades.

  These strategies have had a clear objective of reducing health inequalities (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 1987, 1993, 2001, 2008, 2009, 2011).

  Although the overall health of Finnish population has improved, relative health inequalities between socio-economic groups have increased despite the policy goals set in public health programs. §  This may indicate a divergence between strategic policy objectives

and the actual implementation of those policies. 31

POLICY STRATEGIES

 Health for All Program (1986/1993)  Health 2015 Public Health Program (2001)  National Action Plan to Reduce Health Inequalities,

2008–2011  Program for Health Promotion, 2007–2011  Finnish Government Programmes, 2007–2011 & 2011–

2015  Socially Sustainable Finland, 2020

 See the research report: Health Inequalities in Finland: Trends in Socioeconomic Health Differences 1980–2005 (Palosuo et al., 2009).

32

EXAMPLES OF POLICY PAPERS

8/6/13

17

§ Finnish political parties and poverty reduction

§ Future prospects

33

3. THE POLITICS OF POVERTY REDUCTION

 The prevalence of poverty is associated to public policy decisions that influence the distribution of resources within a society.

 These public policy decisions are shaped by different political ideologies and discourses that are maintaining or reshaping social and economic structures.

 Political parties have the key role in poverty

reduction through the policies they support and are willing to implement.

34

POVERTY AND PUBLIC POLICY

8/6/13

18

 The parties were asked to name at least three key actions that would reduce poverty in Finland.

 The analysis includes responses from seven different

political parties that are currently represented in the Finnish parliament.

 The responses were collected in the context of the

European Union’s theme year against poverty and social exclusion in 2010 (before the 2011 parliamentary election that was held on April 17 in 2011).

35

REVIEW POLICY INITIATIVES OF FINNISH POLITICAL PARTIES


36

!


-> The current opposition parties

8/6/13

19

 The responses still can help to grasp the

political priorities of different political parties in terms of poverty reduction.

 The parties were asked to share concrete actions to reduce poverty. The results had some similarities but also clear differences.

37

NATURE OF RESPONSES

 In general, the Finnish political parties share a unanimous support for the welfare state.

 Many of the parties see that the most desirable way to reduce poverty is to ensure an adequate income security and social benefits.

 Concurrent themes in the responses were related to the maintaining of a high employment rate and high-quality public services.

38

SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES

8/6/13

20

39

  The National Coalition Party (20.4%) highlighted the importance of employment in poverty reduction and suggested increased means-testing by targeting social benefits to the citizens who need them most (NCP was the only party that proposed increasing means-testing).

  The Social Democratic Party (19.1%) did not propose any major reforms to the welfare system but highlighted the need to maintain a high employment rate and to implement new active employment policies.

  The True Finns/The Finns (19.1%) emphasized the need for adequate benefits and the implementation of preventive measures to improve the situation of children and youth.

  The Centre Party (15.8%) called for adequate social benefits and services as well as improved access to employment by providing flexible arrangements for people with a limited ability to work.

40

 The Left Alliance (8.1%) recommended restructuring the social security even more towards index-linked and universal social benefits.

 The Green Party (7.3%) proposed restructuring the whole social security system by implementing a basic income guarantee in order to reduce the complexity of the current social security system.

 The Swedish People’s Party (4.3%) focused almost entirely on improving the well-being and employment opportunities among youth.

 The Christian Democrats (4%) called attention to the quality of social and health services and to improving the financial situation of families with children.

8/6/13

21

 The parties seem to agree that poverty can be reduced through: § Accessible social and health services that are good

quality. § A capacity to prevent social and health problems

before their escalation.

 It should be noted that in this case, the parties were asked their poverty reduction measures. § Almost all responses highlighted, not only income

supports, but also the role of wider public policies. 41

POLITICAL CONSENSUS?

 As always in politics, based on consensus and compromises, there is most likely a divergence between what is said and what is actually done. § Other societal actors (i.e. labour unions, business sector) § Path dependencies (e.g. conflicted interests and difficulty

to reform the Finnish social and health care system)

 Informed citizens are provided an opportunity to follow the implementation of these proposals.

 Policy advocates can raise these issues on the public policy agenda.

42

IMPLICATIONS IN THE REAL WORLD

8/6/13

22

 Future challenges of the Finnish welfare state are similar to those of other European nations: § Aging population § Economic instability § Increased inequality § Globalization § Migration

 The Finnish challenge is to maintain the quality of social and health services and ensure good access to these services at a municipal level.

43

FUTURE PROSPECTS I

44

Three possible scenarios on the future of the Finnish welfare state (Hiilamo et al., 2010): 1) The retrenchment of the Finnish welfare state associated with stagnant income supports and benefits (e.g. basic unemployment allowance and labour market subsidy) that do not follow the general wage trend. 2) Incremental and minor increases in social security and moving the Finnish social security system increasingly towards means-tested benefits.

In both of these scenarios, the level of earnings-related benefits would rise faster than non-earnings related benefits.

3) Systematic increases in minimum social benefits that further improve the relative position of citizens at risk of poverty in the lowest income brackets.

8/6/13

23

 During the past decade, the aim to reduce health and income inequalities may have been less a priority than other policy objectives § Market liberalization, economic growth, short-term

financial savings …

 Finland is a well-developed welfare state but continuous efforts and political determination are needed to ensure a favourable social and economic situation in the future.

45

SUMMARY

Documents

HEALTH INEQUALITIES AND INCOME INEQUALITY IN · PDF fileHEALTH INEQUALITIES AND INCOME INEQUALITY IN FINLAND ... Foreword by the former Minister of Culture, MD Claes ... and social