The Liberal vs. Nordic Welfare Models

Introduction

This paper compares the liberal and Nordic welfare models for social policy, focusing on crime and prisons. The liberal model emphasizes personal responsibility and minimal state intervention, while the Nordic model emphasizes social responsibility and well-funded welfare systems. We examine how the criminal justice systems of the UK and Norway align with their respective welfare models. The UK’s approach emphasizes individual pathology, underfunding, and punishment-based prisons, while Norway prioritizes rehabilitation and well-funded prisons and acknowledges the social causes of crime. Through this comparison, we explore the impact of the social provision on crime and consider the prospects of convergence toward a more rehabilitative approach.

Liberal Welfare Model

A neo-liberal approach characterizes the liberal welfare model. It highlights individual accountability for social predicaments like crime and their possible resolutions. The role of the government in societal affairs is restricted, with minimal interference. The liberal welfare model adopts a means-tested program approach when it comes to delivering welfare assistance, only targeting those deemed impoverished. Rather than comprehensive support, efforts are geared toward modifying flawed behavior patterns. This stems from an ideology that proposes that individuals should take responsibility for their prosperity while allowing market forces to aid social issues (Wilson, 2021). Reliance on private-market-based provision characterizes the liberal welfare model, whereby seeking solutions through market mechanisms is expected from individuals instead of relying upon state support for various social services.

Nordic Welfare Model

Focusing extensively on social responsibility while offering complex welfare services distinguishes the Nordic welfare model from liberalism’s version. Crucially, this divergence signifies significant distinctions in underlying values and priorities that inform policy-making decisions regarding citizen well-being. Whereas the liberal model renders minimal state involvement, the Nordic welfare system prioritizes active participation from the government with regard to addressing communal issues inclusive of criminal activities (Hilson, 2020). Its perception is that all individuals are collectively responsible for societal development, thus warranting universal and adequately financed social welfare plans to promote egalitarianism.

The Nordic welfare model adopts a unique approach to its criminal justice system with adequate funding and stress on rehabilitation. Rehabilitating offenders who go through their system is preferred over punitive measures as they believe it reduces repeat offenses while promoting economic equity and social harmony in society, thus becoming effective (Hilson, 2020). Countries such as Norway reflect this ideology by designing systems that declare the root cause behind crimes with efficient reintegration mechanisms.

Contributing significantly to understanding welfare models, especially Nordic models, Esping-Andersen is a prominent sociologist who classified them into three categories liberal, conservative, and social democratic. The Social Democratic approach portrayed prominently by Nordic Welfare Model places premium emphasis on equality, social solidarity, and a strong welfare state (Hilson, 2020).

Comparison of Criminal Justice Systems

The criminal justice systems in both countries demonstrate varying degrees of conformity to their respective welfare models. While the Norwegian criminal justice system aligns closely with the welfare-focused Nordic model, the UK system reflects the principles of the individual pathology approach inherent in the liberal model (Bjørndal et al., 2021).

The Norwegian criminal justice system embodies the principles of the Nordic welfare model. It acknowledges the social causes of crime and adopts a welfare-focused ethos. Rehabilitation is a key principle aiming to address the underlying issues that contribute to criminal behavior. The system prioritizes more comprehensive social provision within prisons, including education and health opportunities (Fahsing, 2019). Additionally, the focus is on reducing reconviction rates through comprehensive support and addressing the needs of offenders during their time in prison.

In contrast, the UK criminal justice system reflects the individual pathology approach of the liberal welfare model. The system attributes blame for crime to individuals rather than addressing broader social factors. Prisons in the UK suffer from underfunding and operate under a punitive ethos, emphasizing punishment over rehabilitation. This leads to challenges such as poor resources and conditions, overcrowding, and high reconviction rates.

Conclusion

An analysis of Norway’s criminal justice system compared to that of the UK highlights distinct variations in strategy and resultant effects when viewed through liberal and Nordic welfare models. In sync with its welfare-centric approach, Norway focuses heavily on reforming offenders via effective rehabilitation means while prioritizing meticulously crafted social provision programs to tackle multifaceted underlying societal causes that breed criminality. Contrastingly, UK’s adherence to a particular pathology-based ideology manifests in a heavily punitive approach, disfavouring rehabilitation measures coupled with insufficient funding issues. The comparison highlights the broader impact of social provision on crime prevention and the potential for convergence between the two systems. While the UK could benefit from adopting a more rehabilitative approach, aligning with the Nordic model, challenges such as underfunding and the prevailing punitive ethos must be addressed. By further exploring and understanding the relationship between welfare models and criminal justice systems, policymakers and practitioners can make informed decisions to enhance social policies and promote more effective and equitable approaches to crime and justice.

References

Bjørndal, L. D., McGill, L., Magnussen, S., Richardson, S., Saraiva, R., Stadel, M., & Brennen, T. (2021). Norwegian judges’ knowledge of factors affecting eyewitness testimony: a 12-year follow-up. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(5), 665-682.

Fahsing, I. (2019). ‘The Making of an Expert Detective’—A European Perspective: Comparing Decision-Making in Norway and UK. Decision Making in Police Enquiries and Critical Incidents: What Really Works? 83-105.

Hilson, M. (2020). The Nordic welfare model. Introduction to Nordic cultures, 70–83.

Wilson, S. (2021). Conclusion: living wages and liberal welfare states in the 21st century. In Living Wages and the Welfare State (pp. 171-182). Policy Press.