Since there has been a major failure of governance and lack of cooperation in the Swedish parliament recently, maybe its time to scrutinize what the public thinks about different topics. In this post I present some statistics from the yearly national survey by the SOM-institute in Göteborg. You can find the report in full here. Let’s examine if the Swedish public is as divided as our dear politicians.

Photo: Carsten Tolkmit CC-BY-SA

Since 2007-08 public opinion for privatisation of the public sector has dropped substantially and this could be viewed as a general disapproval of the last government's widespread privatisation reforms as well as a change in opinion after the financial crisis (Nilsson, 2013). In 2012, around 60% of Swedes were for a not-for-profit proposal in the welfare sector (health care, education, elderly care). Only 16% thought it was a bad idea (see graph). Left-wing voters were strongest for such a proposal while right-wing voters were most against it, but overall most people seem to be against privatisation of the welfare sector.

During the last couple of years swedish military capability to protect territorial borders have been increasingly debated. But despite all the critique towards the Swedish Armed Forces, public resistance towards a NATO-membership had not changed much by 2012. In 2012, only 17% of swedes thought a NATO-membership was a good idea and 45% thought is was a bad idea, while 38% said it was neither a good or bad idea (Bjereld, 2013).

When a debate broke out in January 2013 around the supreme commander stating that the army could only defend Sweden for a week, public opinion shifted a bit. But since no political party made it into a strategic goal or campaigned on the issue, public opinion shifted back (Bjereld, 2013). Ironically, Sweden is basically already a member of NATO since we pay high fees, cooperate and contribute with international forces even if we haven’t signed a full membership. At the same time, Swedish confidence level (share of positive minus share of negative) in the Swedish Armed Forces has decreased continuously since 1994 and hit a low point of -22 in 2008, but have since bounced back and is now at zero (see graph below). Surprisingly, young people (15-29 years) seems to have the biggest confidence in the military, while older people have much lower confidence. Four in ten young swedes want to re-introduce compulsory military service (allmän värnplikt). Support is strongest among Center Party (C), Moderates (M) and Christian Democrats (Kd)- voters which could be interpreted as a failure of/dissatisfaction with previous military and security policy driven by the Alliance (Ydén & Berndtsson, 2013).

Immigration opinion in Sweden from a long-term perspective, the last two decades, has become increasingly generous. Opinion has shifted from 65% in 1992 to 44% in 2013 thinking we should restrict immigration of refugees. However, resistance to immigration increased between 2011-2012, according to the SOM institute. The graph below shows in percentage the swedish opinion (2013) on the proposal of accepting fewer refugees into the country.

At the same time, during the last two decades, Sweden has had two xenophobic parties in Parliament (New Democracy 1991-1994, and the Sweden Democrats 2010-). Immigration sceptical and xenophobic parties successes is an effect of the ability to mobilize voters with negative attitudes towards immigration and refugee acceptance as well as the ability to politicize these attitudes. An important factor to such mobilization could be mainstream media's treatment of the party’s success or questioning and reporting around immigration and refugee related issues. During the fall of 2012 discussions around the Sweden Democrats politics and immigration politics in general were discussed a lot in the media (the term “immigration” got 2 330 search hits during 2012, compared to 1539 hits in 2011. An increase of 50%). Immigration as a political priority among the public also increased from 8th to 4th place between 2011 and 2012. According to Sandberg & Demker (2013), men and people with low education background are most negative towards immigration. The older generation is also a bit more negative than younger people, while the most positive people are located in the larger cities (Sandberg & Demker, 2013). People who are worried about another economic crisis are and have become increasingly negative towards immigration numbers. But surprisingly, its people who are not worried about their personal finances (middle class or above) that have become more negative in accepting refugees. The largest increase in negative attitudes has been among people over 50 that identify as far right on a left-right ideological scale.

The share of swedes that claim to give money to a charity at least once a month has increased from 27% in 1998 to 36% in 2012 (Ekengren & Oscarsson, 2013). The global financial crisis that started in 2008-2009 have had an impact on many societal trends but not on swedes tendency to give money to charities. However, a corresponding increase is not seen in charity memberships. Women and the older generation tend to give more than men and younger people. Swedish citizens are thus becoming more generous with giving private funding to charities. However, public opinion on governmental foreign aid, which tend to decrease in time of economic crisis, has become more negative since 2007-08. In 2012, 40% of swedes regarded decreasing foreign aid to developing countries as a bad proposal while 25% thought it was a good idea (see graph below).

Foreign aid to developing countries have stronger support in smaller more liberal parties than among big parties and far right-wing voters. Peoples Liberal party (+9%), Green Party (+8%) and Christian Democrats (+6%) voters are more positive to foreign aid while Social Democrats (-7%) and Moderates (-13%) voters are more negative (1987-2012). The Sweden Democrats voters are much more negative to foreign aid (-25%) (Ekengren & Oscarsson, 2013). Finally, people who identify as religious tend to be much more positive towards charity membership, foreign aid and giving money.

45% of Swedes believe in god and 70% are members of the Swedish Church (Svenska kyrkan). Only 2% claim to muslims. But 82% think that everyone should be free to practice their faith (freedom of religion), and most swedes also agree that one should not mix religion and politics (see chart) (Bromander, 2013).

Areas the the public worries most about are mostly related to environmental problems. Environmental degradation (42%), changes in Earth’s climate (40%) and marine degradation (39%) are among the top 5 areas where people feel most worried. However, this is a decrease since the highest values measured in 2007. Worries about organized crime (41%) and large unemployment (41%) have increased since 2011. This could be a reflection of the economic crisis in 2008 and the continuing european crisis as well as increased reporting on crime and violence in the media. Worries about increased amount of refugees also rose, from 19% in 2011 to 27% in 2012 (Weibull et al. 2013). Also this could be a reflection of increased debate and reporting on immigration issues in media outlets and politics.

We have known for a long time that there are physical limits to population and economic growth in terms of what the Biosphere can provide. The Limits to Growth (1972) “business-as-usual” (BAU) scenario produced about forty years ago now aligns well with historical data that has been updated (Figure 1, Turner, 2014). Showing that we are headed in the wrong direction, away from achieving sustainable development. The BAU scenario results in collapse of the global economy and environment, subsequently forcing population down. A collapse in this context simply refers to the fact that standard of living will fall at rates faster than they have historically risen, due to disruption of economic functions. According to the model, a fall in population only occurs after about 2030 but the general onset of collapse first appears at about 2015 when per capita industrial output begins a sharp decline (Turner, 2014). Given the imminent timing, we ought to raise the question whether the current economic difficulties are related to dwindling resources and an end to growth.

Most people assume that the major global difficulties will occur after the end to growth. According to Dennis Meadows, one of the original authors of the book limits to growth, this is not correct. Instead, the global population will experience the most stress prior to the peak, as pressures mount high enough to neutralize the enormous political, demographic, and economic forces that now sustains growth. Pressures building up can take many forms, for example, rising energy and resource costs (A), growing debt (B), climate change (C) and growing population dependency ratio (D).

The history of commodity prices has generally been one of steadily decline for most of the last century. However, the average price fall of some 1.2% a year (inflation adjusted) met it’s low point in 2002. Since 2002 we have seen a remarkable price rise in most commodities (Figure 2). Rising energy and food prices, for example, seems to be the new normal. Unless there is a global economic contraction, prices will likely continue to rise.

2. Commodity indices (1900-2010) - Paradigm shift Source: GMO (2011)

B) Growing Debt

3. Public debt in % of GDP in 2013 (left) 4. Private debt in % of GDP in 2012 (right). Source: Eurostat

C) Climate Change

The world is aging at a rapid rate and by 2030 there will be 34 nations where more than 20% of the population is over 65 (figure 6). This has broad implications for economic growth and immigration trends. While Sweden's dependency rate will rise we still have a rise in population both from births and from immigration (SCB, 2014). Given today's immigration policy the potential to meet the growing needs of an aging population is better than other countries such as Japan or Austria.

Most common solutions to increased welfare costs depend on growth. For example through encouraging higher birth rates, raising immigration rates, increasing labor productivity, raising the retirement age and increasing taxation. Effective responses, however, are different. Especially if one is serious about creating a more resilient society. There will probably have to be a restructuring of the economy, a reorienting of capital and labor structure of society, from production toward maintenance, to serve an aging population and lower resource consumption. Priority has to shift from GDP per person toward maximizing human welfare directly i.e. using different metrics for national targets. Expenditures have to be reduced by developing non-market methods of social support (e.g. volunteer work, time-banking). The benefit of an aging population is that construction rates goes down, so does the need for police, prisons and military, while the need for health care increases. Shorter work time can give more jobs while allowing more leisure time. Shifting taxes from labor towards heavy industries and resource extraction is another interesting idea.

Several stresses are converging, creating difficulties for the welfare state. Especially in countries with demographic trends of having to care for a larger number of pensioneers. Dependency ratio will increase at the same time as GNP declines. Resource prices have reverted from their long-term downward trend, to increasing prices, but falling again in times of economic contraction.We have unsustainable levels of debt, especially unproductive debt (consumption and speculation), putting downward pressure on the economy. No government has yet tried to increase taxes a lot on the financial sphere or other efforts to get debt levels down, this is mainly because much of our growth today depends on ever increasing debt. Climate change will have many impacts e.g. increasing yields in the north and lower yields in the south of Europe. Scandinavia is in a better position than southern Europe to handle coming heatwaves and floods since temperatures are lower from the beginning. There is plenty of human capital and much work needed to be done (e.g. elderly care) but misalignment of incentives has led to massive unemployment and a generation of lost youths who can't get a job, even with a university degree. Potential solutions should involve changed goals, redirected investment and initiatives to engage the neglected work force. Sweden is in a better position than most other countries to achieve a more resilient society but radical thinking and a clear vision is needed if we wish to maintain our social welfare.

Similar to the case of TTP a very controversial clause in the TTIP is the Investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS). The ISDS would allow corporations to sue governments, for any government action (at any level, including local government level) that limits a corporation's future profits. One example of how the ISDS clause in TTIP would impact countries can be found in the case of the Swedish, part state owned, energy company Vattenfall suing the German government over the issue of terminating nuclear power plants. Vattenfall demands payouts of 4,7 billion euros (Der Spiegel), and has caused outrage in Germany. Other examples includes tobacco companies suing the Australian government over health labeling of cigarettes, and fracking companies suing the Canadian government over environmental protection. The original justification for introducing ISDS in trade agreements was for trade deals with countries where the judicial system was weak in protecting foreign investors. But this is not the case with either the EU or the US. According to the latest UN report on the topic, ISDS cases has increased from 0 in 1992 to 514 in 2012.

There is now a growing civil society resistance to TTIP and ISDS inclusion in the TTIP negotiations. Last month there were 450 protest actions across 24 member states (The Greens Europe). The European NGO Finance Watch writes about ISDS that "the very principle of such a mechanism is anti-democratic, because it allows investors to challenge legitimate regulations and other rules that have been created and voted by democratic institutions with a view to protecting their citizens". Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has reported that of 560 lobby encounters that the European Commission trade department held to prepare the negotiations, 520 (92%) were with business lobbyists, while only 26 (4%) were with public interest groups (CEO). That must be considered corporate capture. A large number of European scientists have also voiced concern over ISDS legal nature, quote "there is little evidence linking the conclusion of the Treaties to increased flows of foreign direct investment, and there is little evidence that they contribute to other development goals, such as encouraging good governance" (University of Kent). And a recent study from Tufts University has concluded through modelling that TTIP could lead to: net loss in exports for the EU, a net loss in GDP, and a loss in employment of some 600 000 jobs, and the author conclude by stating that "In the current context of austerity, high unemployment and low growth, increasing the pressure on labor incomes would further harm economic activity" (Capaldo, 2014).

Many environmental organisations fear that the TTIP will ignite a "race to the bottom" regarding environmental regulations in the EU, so that they come to resemble the US far weaker regulatory system. Most likely the TTIP will accelerate the privatization of public goods and services such as National Health systems. This could have tremendous effects on public health. And many analysts agree that TTIP would allow big food corporations to avoid food safety regulations and undermine sustainable agricultural practices in the rush for profits and trade. For example, the US has much weaker standards on animal welfare, ecosystem protection and GMO labeling. These are serious citizen concerns that has not been sufficiently addressed by governments wishing to take part of the TTIP.