Wealthier, but so what?

Last month, a book was launched that aims to contribute to a more balanced debate on the direction of social development: På vei mot det gode samfunn ? (On the way to the good society?) The book emanates from a project that was initiated by the Value Commission (set up by the Norwegian government), and is published by Statistics Norway in the Statistical analyses series. For the first time, two important sources for describing social development were seen in context: on the one hand, Statistics Norway’s investigations into living conditions and environmental conditions, and on the other hand, MMI’s ongoing value survey, Norsk Monitor. Whilst SSB’s data shows the actual trends, Norsk Monitor provides a picture of the population’s wishes for social development, and how it is perceived. We use the main conclusions from this book, plus some important additional observations from the indicator articles in this issue of the Samfunnsspeilet periodical, to give a brief introductory picture of “the social state of the nation” in 2004.

No unambiguous picture...

What are the conclusions of the book? The picture is complex. Several features of Norwegian social development in the last few decades have evidently been negative. This also applies to working life trends. In 2003, almost 340 000 persons wanted to be more included in the labor market; a major challenge in relation to the ideal of a more inclusive society. Working life appears to put greater demands on employees and is characterised by major adaptations and tighter deadlines.

Other negative features relate to drink and drug problems, crime, environmental conditions and an increasing economic inequality. The wealthiest section of society is claiming an increasingly larger proportion of the total income, and the rich and poor divide is also widening. The trend in relation to the latter has been in direct opposition to the wishes of the majority of the population. Two out of three persons believe it is a primary public duty to reduce the economic inequality, even though Norway is one of the countries with the least economic inequality. Social inequality in life expectancy is also relatively high. It is worrying that many negative trends appear to apply to the young to a large extent, such as the increase in the use of illegal drugs and the development of a number of different mental health disorders.

Some features of the value development in recent years may be regarded as negative for the quality of Norwegian society, and contrary to the wishes of the majority. The dissemination of materialistic values has been increasing since the end of the 1980s. Amongst other things, this trend is linked to less respect for the law, less consideration for others and an unwillingness to become socially and politically engaged.

... but more positive than negative features

However, there are also many examples of positive changes in the last few decades, and the positive features outnumber the negative. The majority of people now have more leisure time, more money to spend and better education opportunities. A large proportion of our leisure time is spent watching the TV, true enough, but recent years have shown an upsurge in the number of people who read books. We are also going to concerts and the cinema more frequently nowadays.

A number of persons say they have friends that they confide in and have frequent contact with, it is only our neighbours that we have had less contact with. Contact with our families is stable and frequent, despite the increasing divorce rate making less family interaction feasible. Fewer people die in accidents or commit suicide, and the suicide figures are actually the lowest since 1979.

People are living longer and the increase is greatest for men. The elderly have improved their ability to function and parts of the state welfare system have evidently improved. Care for the elderly is constantly being improved, and today’s elderly can live in their own homes longer. If they do need to go to a nursing home, sharing a room is becoming less common. To what extent the care services will be able to tackle the rising number of elderly when the figure becomes really high is another matter. However, those heading towards retirement now belong to the low number of people born in the 1930s, and the situation looks brighter for them. An increasingly larger share of the public purse and society’s value production is spent on health, in accordance with people’s priorities. On the whole, the reform of the regular GP system seems to work as it was intended to.

Prosperity is reflected in better housing, more cars, more consumer goods and a steadily smaller proportion of salaries being spent on food. The interest level is agreeably low, which has resulted in a clear and worrying increase in the level of debt.

Despite the impression given by the media, there was not a rise in poverty and the number of victims of violence in the 1980s and 1990s. A surprising finding is that there were fewer murders and deaths due to attacks at the beginning of the 2000s than 20 years previously. In recent years there has also been a fall in the number of break-ins; this is a new feature after several decades of this type of crime being on the increase.

It has become tougher to be part of working life, but Norway has a high rate of labour force participation by international standards. Women in particular are benefiting from this. Unemployment is relatively high by Norwegian standards, but low in relation to most other European countries. The increase in the number of people receiving invalidity pensions is, however, worrying, but we also have a high statutory pension age by international standards.

World champions?

The positive image is supported by international comparisons. Norway being the “best country in the world” to live in has become somewhat of a mantra in the great social debate. The basis, above all else, is the Human Development Index (HDI) of the UNDP (the UN’s global development network). However, it is based on a small number of indicators that are not conducive to highlighting the differences between wealthy countries. Other indices, calculated on the basis of a broader data capture, show that it is actually Sweden that gets the honour of being the “best country in the world”. More importantly, it is not uncommon for Norway to be viewed unfavourably in international comparisons. For example, Norwegian schools are not particularly good at levelling out social differences. Differences in health standards between social groups are greater in Norway than in many other countries. There are significant differences in the life expectancy between persons in academic professions and those who work in more manual jobs.

The effort made by one of the world's wealthiest countries to solve the world’s poverty and environmental problems is also an important part of the quality of society. An index for policies that are aimed at helping developing countries was presented last year, which gave Norway an average rating due to its trade policy. The UN report that hailed Norway as the best country in the world last summer, highlighted Norway as an example of a wealthy country that provides a great deal of development aid, but which could do more to increase imports from the developing countries.

Despite Norway undoubtedly being a good country to live in, the reputation as the world’s best can be somewhat exaggerated. It can also be debated whether Norwegian society is actually worse than it is reputed to be in other areas. The percentage that believed that intensifying the conservation of the environment in Norway was a particularly important policy issue, was halved from 1989 to 2001. It’s true that a number of the local problems have abated, but the development at a global level has been more negative (emission of greenhouse gases, reduced biological diversity). Emissions of greenhouse gases in Norway are increasing. This is one example of how disasters such as Chernobyl and the algae invasion at the end of the 1980s can awaken interest, and how interest wanes when the drama disappears from the media.

The survey of living conditions also shows that the environmental problems do not affect people’s everyday lives at home or in their surroundings to any greater degree than before.

Pessimism prevails

In contrast to the number of positive trends and flattering UN statistics, Norsk Monitor demonstrates that the population’s view of social development is marked by pessimism. There are far more people who think that society has become worse to live in in recent years than who think it has improved. Even more striking are the negative expectations of the future, with only 1 out of 10 people believing things will improve.

There are many reasons for this contrast. Some may have put greater emphasis on the negative features than the positive. The desire for improvement may have increased at a higher rate than the actual improvements, whereby “more” is still perceived to be “less”. A third possibility is the tendency in the media. When we lack insight into other people’s reality, the media becomes a crucial source of information. The media image is often characterised by dramatic, negative individual events, which make a greater impression than statistical data with a positive tendency.

A strong disparity between an image of society and the actual trends is invidious. Where an imbalanced image of misery characterises the public debate, it is easy to imagine negative consequences: the lack of confidence in the political system intensifies, fewer people become involved with the elected bodies and pessimism grows. This is exactly how the development in Norwegian society appears to be. Amongst other things, there was a dramatic increase in the mistrust of politicians and political bodies in the 1990s.

On the other hand, naive development optimism can be just as dangerous and unjustified. One of the problems is that the major challenges are now less visible and more uncertain than before. For example, the consequences of emitting more greenhouse gases are relatively remote and uncertain. In a democracy, the attention is to a large extent focused on current interest, and therefore environmental choices may prove to be fatal in the longer term. Regardless of this, we need to believe in the potential for action, and this is where the widespread pessimism is a major challenge.

Is there a correlation between the widespread pessimism and other negative trends, such as the increase in drink and drugs problems? If the future appears to be dismal and uncertain, can it be more tempting to indulge in instant pleasures? What we don’t know is whether the pessimism also applies to our own, personal future or whether it is limited to society in general. It is fully possible for us to perceive ourselves as a positive exception from a general trend.

Anders Barstad is a researcher in Statistics Norway, Division for Social and Demographic Research, Dag Ellingsen is a senior adviser in Statistics Norway, Division for Social Welfare Statistics, whilst Ottar Hellevik is a professor in political science at the University of Oslo and head of research at MMI. This article is partly based on an article in the Dagbladet newspaper dated 12 August 2004.