How the Responsibility of Digital Support for Older People is Allocated? The Swedish Welfare System at the Crossroads
Downloads
Abstract
A great welfare challenge today is to promote opportunities of digitalization while limiting social inequalities from digital divides, especially for older people. While the digital divide is a dynamic problem, shifting from physical access to skills and usage, public policies to close the divide do not necessary follow. This study explores who is providing digital support in Sweden by looking at three institutions: (1) the municipal eldercare system, (2) popular education institutions, and (3) the family. The results show that the Swedish policy rely heavily on popular education and family arrangements, leaving many young-old Swedes in need of digital support without public support, while the opposite occurs for very old Swedes who are mostly consumers of welfare technologies. Issues of dependency/independency arise. Given this, the role to the Swedish welfare state needs to be re-evaluated, especially in light of rapid demographic change.
Downloads
References
Agre, P. E. (2002). Real-time politics: The Internet and the political process. The Information Society, 18(5). https://doi.org/311-331. 10.1080/01972240290075174
Google Scholar CrossrefAlexopoulou, S. (2020). Borrowed access: The grey digital divide meets the familialist welfare model of Greece. The Journal of Aging and Social Change, 10(1), 15-33. https://doi.org/10.18848/2576-5310/CGP/v10i01/15-33.
Google Scholar CrossrefBarber, B. R. (2001). The uncertainty of digital politics: Democracy’s uneasy relationship with information technology. Harvard International Review, 23(1), 42-47. www.jstor.org/stable/42762661.
Google Scholar CrossrefBengtsson, M. (2016). How to Plan and Perform a Qualitative Study Using Content Analysis. Nursing Plus Open, 2, 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001.
Google Scholar CrossrefBlomberg, S., Edebalk, P. G., & Petersson, J. (2000). The withdrawal of the welfare state: Elderly care in Sweden in the 1990s. European Journal of Social Work, 3(2), 151-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/714052821.
Google Scholar CrossrefBlomqvist, P. (2004). The choice revolution: Privatization of Swedish welfare services in the 1990s. Social Policy and Administration, 38(2), 139–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2004.00382.x.
Google Scholar CrossrefBrodin, H. (2005). Does Anybody Care? Public and Private Responsibilities in Swedish Eldercare 1940–2000. Ekonomisk historiska institutionen, Umeå universitet.
Google Scholar CrossrefBustillos, J. (2017). The Digital Divide. Neoliberal Imperatives and Education. In S. Isaacs, (Eds), European Social Problems. London and New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar CrossrefCalhoun, C. (1995). Critical Social Theory: Culture, History and the Challenge of Difference. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.
Google Scholar CrossrefCarruthers, D. (2001). Environmental politics in Chile: Legacies of dictatorship and democracy. Third World Quarterly, 22(3), 343-358. www.jstor.org/stable/3993468.
Google Scholar CrossrefCharmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Google Scholar CrossrefCreswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar CrossrefDahlquist, O., L. (2019). Folkbildning för delaktighet: En studie om bibliotekets demokratiska uppdrag i en digital samtid. Lunds Universitet.
Google Scholar CrossrefDavidsson P., Palm M. & Mandre ÅM. (2018). Svenskarna och internet 2018. Retrieved October 8, 2021 from https://internetstiftelsen.se/docs/Svenskarna_och_internet_2018.pdf
Google Scholar CrossrefDigidel (2013). Ökad digital delaktighet. Stockholm: Digidel.
Google Scholar CrossrefDye, T. R. (1972). Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Google Scholar CrossrefEichhorst, W. & Rinne, U. (2017). Digital Challenges for the Welfare State. IZA Policy Paper, No. 134. Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics
Google Scholar CrossrefEmanuel, M. (2009). Folkbildning kring datorn 1978-85. Transkript av ett vittnesseminarium vid Tekniska museet i Stockholm den 9 oktober 2008. Stockholm: Kungliga tekniska högskolan.
Google Scholar CrossrefEsping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefEsping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefFang, M.L., Canham, S.L., Battersby, L., Sixsmith, J., Wada, M., & Sixsmith, A. (2019). Exploring Privilege in the Digital Divide: Implications for Theory, Policy, and Practice. The Gerontologist, 59, e1–e15. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny037.
Google Scholar CrossrefFischl, C., Lindelöf, N., Lindgren, H., & Nilsson, I. (2020). Older adults’ perceptions of contexts surrounding their social participation in a digitalized society—an exploration in rural communities in Northern Sweden. European Journal of Ageing, 81–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-020-00558-7.
Google Scholar CrossrefFolkbildningsrådet (2019a). Årsredovisning och verksamhetsberättelse. Stockholm: Folkbildningsrådet.
Google Scholar CrossrefFolkbildningsrådet (2019b). Digitalisering inom folkbildningen. Hur ser det ut idag och vilka utmaningar finns framöver? Stockholm: Folkbildningsrådet.
Google Scholar CrossrefFolkbildningsrådet (2018). Årsredovisning och verksamhetsberättelse. Stockholm: Folkbildningsrådet.
Google Scholar CrossrefFolkbildningsrådet (2017). Årsredovisning och verksamhetsberättelse. Stockholm: Folkbildningsrådet.
Google Scholar CrossrefFolkbildningsrådet (2015). Digital delaktighet och flexibelt lärande i folkbildningen 2014. Stockholm: Folkbildningsrådet.
Google Scholar CrossrefFountain, J. E. (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Google Scholar CrossrefFrennert, S. & Baudin, K. (2019). The concept of welfare technology in Swedish municipal eldercare. Disability and Rehabilitation, 43(9), 1220-1227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1661035.
Google Scholar CrossrefGovernment Offices of Sweden (2017). För ett hållbart digitaliserat Sverige – en digitaliseringsstrategi. Stockholm: Government Offices of Sweden.
Google Scholar CrossrefGovernment Offices of Sweden (2016) Vision for eHealth 2026 – Common Starting Points for Digitization of Social Services and Health Care. Stockholm: Government Offices of Sweden.
Google Scholar CrossrefGrassman, E. J. (2014). The question of civil society in a Scandinavian Welfare State: Focusing on older people in Sweden. Senri Ethnological Studies, 87, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.15021/00002391.
Google Scholar CrossrefHall, P. (2008). Throwing discourses in the garbage can: The case of Swedish ICT policy. Critical Policy Analysis, 2(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2008.9518530.
Google Scholar CrossrefHansen, H.-T., Lundberg, K., & Syltevik, L. J. (2018). Digitalization, street-level bureaucracy and welfare users’ experiences. Social Policy & Administration, 52(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12283.
Google Scholar CrossrefHelbig, N., Gil-Garcia, R. J., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 89−97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.05.004.
Google Scholar CrossrefHelsper, E. J. & Reisdorf, B. C. (2017). The emergence of a “digital underclass” in Great Britain and Sweden: Changing reasons for digital exclusion. New Media & Society, 19(8), 1253-1270, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816634676.
Google Scholar CrossrefHelsper, E. J. & van Deursen, A. J. A. M. (2017). Do the rich get digitally richer? Quantity and quality of support for digital engagement. Information, Communication & Society, 20 (5), 700–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1203454.
Google Scholar CrossrefIT-kommissionen (2002). IT och äldre. IT-kommissionens rapport 2/2002.
Google Scholar CrossrefJensen, P. H. & Andrea, P. (2014). Introduction: Enhancing volunteering in later life in Europe. In A. Principi, P. H. Jensen, & G. Lamura (Eds.), Active Ageing: Voluntary Work by Older People in Europe. University Press Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447307204.003.0001.
Google Scholar CrossrefKatz, S. (2000). Busy bodies: Activity, aging, and the management of everyday life. Journal of Aging Studies, 14(2), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-4065(00)80008-0.
Google Scholar CrossrefKatzin, M. (2014). Tillbaka till familjen: privat och offentligt ansvar i den svenska äldreomsorgen. Retfærd: Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift, 2, 37-53.
Google Scholar CrossrefLänsstyrelserna (2019). Bevakning av grundläggande betaltjänster 2019. Rapport 2019:10.
Google Scholar CrossrefLarsson, S. (1999). Studiecirkeldemokratin. I Amnå, Erik (ed) Civilsamhället. SOU 1999: 84. Demokratiutredningens forskarvolym VIII.
Google Scholar CrossrefLöfgren, K. & Sørensen, E. (2011). Metagoverning policy networks in e-government. In V. Weerakkody (Eds.), Applied Technology Integration in Governmental Organizations: New E-Government Research (pp. 298–312). IGI Global, Hershey.
Google Scholar CrossrefLupton, D. (2013). The digitally engaged patient: Self-monitoring and self-care in the digital health era. Social Theory & Health, 11(3), 256-270. https://doi.org/10.1057/STH.2013.10.
Google Scholar CrossrefMarking, C. (2010). Insatser för Digital Delaktighet. Stockholm: Internetstiftelsen.se.
Google Scholar CrossrefMölndals kommun (2020). Digitalt stöd i hemmet. Ny serviceinsats från 1 januari 2020. Mölndal: Mölndals kommun.
Google Scholar CrossrefMontin, S. (2015). Between hierarchy, market and networks: The case of public service and care for the elderly in Sweden. Paper presented at the International Conference on Public Policy. Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore.
Google Scholar CrossrefMontin, S. (2017). The politics and management of eldercare in flux: The case of Sweden. Paper presented at COST Action Loc, Ref, 9-10 of Mars.
Google Scholar CrossrefMorse, M. J. (2008). Confusing Categories and Themes. Qualitative Health Research 18(6), 727–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308314930.
Google Scholar CrossrefMotel-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Römer, C., & von Kondratowitz, H.-J. (2005). Welfare states do not crowd out the family: Evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing & Society, 25(6), 863-882. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X05003971.
Google Scholar CrossrefNational Board of Health and Welfare (2020a). E-hälsa och välfärdsteknik i kommunerna 2020. Stockholm: National Board of Health and Welfare.
Google Scholar CrossrefNational Board of Health and Welfare (2020b). Vård och omsorg om äldre. Lägesrapport 2020. Stockholm: National Board of Health and Welfare.
Google Scholar CrossrefNey, S. (2005). Active aging policy in Europe: Between path dependency and path departure. Ageing International, 30, 325–342. https://doi.org/110.1007/s12126-005-1019-6.
Google Scholar CrossrefNorberg, I. (2017). Insatser för digital kompetens på folkbiblioteken: En studie om Folkbildningsfolkbibliotekens arbete med digital delaktighet. Stockholm: Digidel.
Google Scholar CrossrefNordens välfärdscenter (2020). Att åldras i Norden - En kartläggning av strategier och initiativ för aktivt och hälsosamt åldrande i de nordiska länderna. Stockholm: Nordens välfärdscenter.
Google Scholar CrossrefNordqvist, C. & Wihlborg, E. (2019). Digitalt först? Kommuners och professionellas arbete för ökad digital inkludering. DINO Rapport 2019:2. Linköping: Linköpings universitet.
Google Scholar CrossrefNorris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefPost-och telestyrelsen (2017). Grundläggande betaltjänster i en digitaliserad framtid,.PTS-ER-2017:20.Stockholm: Post-och telestyrelsen,
Google Scholar CrossrefPowell, W. W. & Di Maggio, P. J. (Eds.) (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefRegeringskansliet (2017/18:47). Hur Sverige blir bäst i världen på att använda digitaliseringens möjligheter - en skrivelse om politikens inriktning. Stockholm.
Google Scholar CrossrefReneland-Forsman, L. (2018). ‘Borrowed access’ – the struggle of older persons for digital participation. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 37(3), 333-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2018.1473516.
Google Scholar CrossrefScheerder, A., van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes: A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607-1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007.
Google Scholar CrossrefSchou, J. (2018). Remaking Citizenship: Welfare Reform and Public Sector Digitalization. ITU-DS No. 151.IT-Universitetet i København.
Google Scholar CrossrefSiren, A. & Knudsen, S. G. (2017). Older adults and emerging digital service delivery: A mixed methods study on information and communications technology use, skills, and attitudes. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 29(1), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2016.1187036.
Google Scholar CrossrefSobis, I. (2014). Comparison of Public and Private Home Care Services for Elderly in Gothenburg Region, Sweden 2013. Central European Public Administration Review, 11(3-4), 25-55. https://doi.org/10.17573/ipar.2013.3-4.a02
Google Scholar CrossrefSOU (2020:14). Framtidens teknik i omsorgens tjänst.
Google Scholar CrossrefSOU (2014:13). En digital agenda i människans tjänst – en ljusnande framtid kan bli vår. Delbetänkande Digitaliseringskommissionen.
Google Scholar CrossrefSPF Seniorerna (2019). Digitalisering handlar om människor. Stockholm: SPF Seniorerna.
Google Scholar CrossrefStatskontoret (2018). En folkbildning i tiden – en utvärdering utifrån syftena med statsbidraget. Slutrapport. Stockholm: Statskontoret.
Google Scholar CrossrefSundström, G., Johansson, L., & Hassing, L. B. (2002). The shifting balance of long-term care in Sweden. Gerontologist, 42 (3), 350-355. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/42.3.350.
Google Scholar CrossrefSvensk biblioteksförening (2018). Digital delaktighet en kärnuppgift för biblioteken. www.biblioteksföreningen.se.
Google Scholar CrossrefSveriges kommuner och landsting (2017). Förutsättningar för digital utveckling i kommuner, landsting och regioner. Handlingsplan 2017-2025. Stockholm: Sveriges kommuner och landsting.
Google Scholar CrossrefSzebehely, M. & Trydegård, G. B. (2007). Omsorgstjänster för äldre och funktionshindrade: skilda villkor, skilda trender? Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 14, 197-219. https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2007.14.2-3.2589.
Google Scholar CrossrefSzebehely, M. & Trydegård, G.-B. (2012). Home care for older people in Sweden: A universal model in transition. Health and Social Care in the Community, 20(3), 300-330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2011.01046.x.
Google Scholar CrossrefSzebehely, M. & Ulmanen, P. (2008). Vård av anhöriga – ett högt pris för kvinnor. Välfärd: SCB:s tidskrift om arbetsliv, demografi och välfärd, 2, 12-14.
Google Scholar CrossrefThe Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (2018). Framtidens äldreomsorg – en nationell kvalitetsplan. Skr. 2017/18:280.
Google Scholar CrossrefThe Swedish Internet Foundation (2020). Svenskarna och Internet 2020. Stockholm: The Swedish Internet Foundation.
Google Scholar CrossrefThe Swedish Internet Foundation (2018). Svenskarna och Internet 2018. Stockholm: The Swedish Internet Foundation.
Google Scholar CrossrefThe Swedish Internet Foundation (2014). Svenskarna och Internet 2014. Stockholm: The Swedish Internet Foundation.
Google Scholar CrossrefTorfing, J. (2009). Rethinking path dependence in public policy research. Critical Policy Studies, 3(1), 70-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460170903158149.
Google Scholar Crossrefvan Deursen, A. J. A. M. & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In L. Robinson, S. R. Cotten, J. Schulz, T. M. Hale, & A. Williams (Eds.), Communication & Information Technologies Annual: Studies in Media & Communications (pp. 29-52). Bingley: Emerald Insight.
Google Scholar CrossrefVan Dijk, J. (2020). The Digital Divide. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefWei, K.-K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. (2011). Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research, 22(1), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0273.
Google Scholar CrossrefYang, K. (2003). Neoinstitutionalism and e-government: Beyond Jane Fountain. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 432-442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303256508.
Google Scholar CrossrefYin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science. Quarterly, 26(1), 58-65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392599.
Google Scholar CrossrefYin, R. K. (1998). The abridged version of case study research: Design and method. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (pp. 229–259). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Google Scholar CrossrefDownloads
Published
Almetric
Dimensions
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Research on Ageing and Social Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles are published under Creative Commons copyright (CC BY). Authors hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions, but authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles as the original source is cited.
