Alternative Paths to the Welfare City: Public Services, Inclusion and the Common Good in Nordic Capital Cities 1870–1920
This project presents a new approach to the study of welfare cities in the Nordic countries, c. 1870–1920. During this period, local politicians abandoned the traditional ideal of financial austerity in order to tackle the social problems following rapid urbanisation. The purpose is to analyse and compare political debates in Stockholm, Copenhagen, Kristiania/Oslo and Helsinki in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Municipal politics followed a general trend: City boards assumed responsibility for services perceived to be vital for economic development and the citizens’ wellbeing. The aim of the project is to identify the discursive changes triggering this development by studying the arguments and concepts used in political language.
The case-studies cover both infrastructure and social services. By examining both policy areas, the project cover the economic research on infrastructure as well as historical research on welfare services. Thus, we may provide a complete picture of how practical policies was linked to perceptions about social inclusion and the common good. Today, the concept of welfare cities is widely discussed; how cities and urban communities may lead the way in reforming social and environmental policy when national governments fail. By analysing how capital cities led the way in formulating a more inclusive policy around 1900, the project “Alternative Paths to the Welfare City” will make an important contribution to this discussion.
Final report
The aim of the project was to analyse and compare debates about public services in Nordic cities between 1870 and 1920. During this period, cities increasingly assumed responsibility for activities that were perceived as necessary for the welfare of their inhabitants. The aim of the project was to identify the discursive forces behind this development through a comparative study of political language, arguments and motives. Through empirical studies of debates in city councils, we have mapped the considerations that drove decisions and compared how these differed across the Nordic countries.
A key result of the project is that we have empirically demonstrated the need for a shift in perspective from the ‘welfare state’ to the ‘welfare city’. The introduction of modern welfare services has traditionally been explained as the result of state reforms. In the Western European context, the apogee of this historical development was the modern welfare state, perhaps best represented by the social democratic model in the Scandinavian countries after 1945 (Esping-Andersen 1990). The Nordic countries have attracted considerable interest in international research, and the Nordic welfare state is widely regarded as a unique model for the organisation of universal welfare services (Finn Christiansen et al. 2006; Kettunen & Petersen 2010; Hort 2014; Edling 2019).
As a result, the historiography of the development of modern welfare systems has had a strong focus on the state, and scholars have identified welfare policy with national policy, albeit with an awareness that there have been variations across Europe (Dagenais & Saunier 2003). However, this explanation of the origins of welfare is inadequate. It overlooks two important aspects that require us to revise our understanding of the history of welfare systems and services.
First, a one-sided perspective at the national level neglects the local political reality: the city, the place where this expansion took place. Historians need to ask what role the city played in the development of modern welfare systems. Second, much of the research to date has focused on the post-1945 period. Instead, the focus needs to be shifted to the 19th and early 20th centuries, as this was the crucial period when welfare services were first introduced and expanded (Ansell & Lindvall 2021; Linnarsson 2024).
Based on this problematisation, the project has resulted in a theoretical definition of the welfare city. We see the welfare city as a political vision of expanding and improving public welfare services. The concept highlights a political shift that occurred when municipalities abandoned austerity in favour of investing in the welfare of citizens. This includes material services such as railways and hospitals, but also social services such as education and health. The definition is discussed in our edited volume (Linnarsson & Hallenberg 2024) and in more detail in our forthcoming monograph (Hallenberg & Linnarsson, forthcoming).
Our definition builds on the urban challenges of the past, but also draws on contemporary debates where it is used to discuss how today’s cities and municipalities can take the lead in reforming social and environmental policies. For example, in tackling problems of segregation and economic inequality, and in promoting a sustainable urban environment. There is a growing body of literature discussing the changes needed in public policy (Etingoff 2015; Caldarice 2018).
In the project we have compared Stockholm, Copenhagen, Kristiania/Oslo and Helsinki; cities that have headed the changes. Through a Nordic comparison, we have studied the mutual influences and reasons behind the ideological reorientation in favour of public operation. We have examined the discussions at the municipal level and analysed how city leaders approached the extension of municipal responsibilities to citizens.
After an inventory of source material and a reading of the literature, the empirical studies were limited to an analysis of the political debates on the tram network and the construction of hospitals in the four cities. These two activities are present in all cities and are discussed by the political decision-making assemblies throughout the period. Another advantage of the sample is that trams and hospitals capture issues of infrastructure, tax revenues and social provision.
In addition to our theoretical contribution in defining the welfare city, the project has produced a number of other important academic results. First, we see that the final outcome – public organisation of public services – is the same in all cities towards the end of the period, but that the paths to it were very different. Cities that were pioneers at one stage lagged behind at a later stage, only to catch up in the end. The move towards greater local responsibility has not been a straight line, but rather a series of advances and setbacks.
Second, we can observe that national and international models have played a prominent role in policy discourses. References to the organisation of social services in German cities are very common, especially in Copenhagen. In Stockholm, politicians also point to Copenhagen as a model, but also the supposedly business-friendly Gothenburg. The Helsinki City Council mentions both Stockholm and Oslo as comparisons and desirable examples.
Thirdly, and this is one of our key findings, we want to reject the notion that it was mainly social democrats who pushed for greater public responsibility. Our research makes it abundantly clear that liberal and conservative politicians have also pushed welfare issues and articulated visions of inclusion and social citizenship. This is because we also want to push back the chronology of debates about public welfare at the municipal, urban level. In many ways, these debates preceded similar discussions in the central political arenas. This relates to our argument that historians should emphasise the ‘welfare city’ rather than the ‘welfare state’.
Fourth, we want to show and critically discuss whether there has been a distinct Nordic model for the development of municipal welfare services. We believe that we can identify a number of important differences compared to other European capitals. One is the lack of a united conservative front against the expansion of municipal services. Even right-wing politicians have increasingly become an active part of the movement towards rational planning and political control of urban growth. Another is that we can see how the importance of the social issue varied greatly in different contexts. On some occasions, social considerations were ever-present in the debates, while on others they were relegated to the background.
Finally, our research has also produced interesting results in relation to voting reform and the increasing politicisation of urban governance. We can show empirically that issues of infrastructure and urban citizenship were articulated in city council debates even before the party-political breakthrough. Urban citizenship was a driving factor, not a side effect, of the suffrage struggle.
A key result of the project is that we have empirically demonstrated the need for a shift in perspective from the ‘welfare state’ to the ‘welfare city’. The introduction of modern welfare services has traditionally been explained as the result of state reforms. In the Western European context, the apogee of this historical development was the modern welfare state, perhaps best represented by the social democratic model in the Scandinavian countries after 1945 (Esping-Andersen 1990). The Nordic countries have attracted considerable interest in international research, and the Nordic welfare state is widely regarded as a unique model for the organisation of universal welfare services (Finn Christiansen et al. 2006; Kettunen & Petersen 2010; Hort 2014; Edling 2019).
As a result, the historiography of the development of modern welfare systems has had a strong focus on the state, and scholars have identified welfare policy with national policy, albeit with an awareness that there have been variations across Europe (Dagenais & Saunier 2003). However, this explanation of the origins of welfare is inadequate. It overlooks two important aspects that require us to revise our understanding of the history of welfare systems and services.
First, a one-sided perspective at the national level neglects the local political reality: the city, the place where this expansion took place. Historians need to ask what role the city played in the development of modern welfare systems. Second, much of the research to date has focused on the post-1945 period. Instead, the focus needs to be shifted to the 19th and early 20th centuries, as this was the crucial period when welfare services were first introduced and expanded (Ansell & Lindvall 2021; Linnarsson 2024).
Based on this problematisation, the project has resulted in a theoretical definition of the welfare city. We see the welfare city as a political vision of expanding and improving public welfare services. The concept highlights a political shift that occurred when municipalities abandoned austerity in favour of investing in the welfare of citizens. This includes material services such as railways and hospitals, but also social services such as education and health. The definition is discussed in our edited volume (Linnarsson & Hallenberg 2024) and in more detail in our forthcoming monograph (Hallenberg & Linnarsson, forthcoming).
Our definition builds on the urban challenges of the past, but also draws on contemporary debates where it is used to discuss how today’s cities and municipalities can take the lead in reforming social and environmental policies. For example, in tackling problems of segregation and economic inequality, and in promoting a sustainable urban environment. There is a growing body of literature discussing the changes needed in public policy (Etingoff 2015; Caldarice 2018).
In the project we have compared Stockholm, Copenhagen, Kristiania/Oslo and Helsinki; cities that have headed the changes. Through a Nordic comparison, we have studied the mutual influences and reasons behind the ideological reorientation in favour of public operation. We have examined the discussions at the municipal level and analysed how city leaders approached the extension of municipal responsibilities to citizens.
After an inventory of source material and a reading of the literature, the empirical studies were limited to an analysis of the political debates on the tram network and the construction of hospitals in the four cities. These two activities are present in all cities and are discussed by the political decision-making assemblies throughout the period. Another advantage of the sample is that trams and hospitals capture issues of infrastructure, tax revenues and social provision.
In addition to our theoretical contribution in defining the welfare city, the project has produced a number of other important academic results. First, we see that the final outcome – public organisation of public services – is the same in all cities towards the end of the period, but that the paths to it were very different. Cities that were pioneers at one stage lagged behind at a later stage, only to catch up in the end. The move towards greater local responsibility has not been a straight line, but rather a series of advances and setbacks.
Second, we can observe that national and international models have played a prominent role in policy discourses. References to the organisation of social services in German cities are very common, especially in Copenhagen. In Stockholm, politicians also point to Copenhagen as a model, but also the supposedly business-friendly Gothenburg. The Helsinki City Council mentions both Stockholm and Oslo as comparisons and desirable examples.
Thirdly, and this is one of our key findings, we want to reject the notion that it was mainly social democrats who pushed for greater public responsibility. Our research makes it abundantly clear that liberal and conservative politicians have also pushed welfare issues and articulated visions of inclusion and social citizenship. This is because we also want to push back the chronology of debates about public welfare at the municipal, urban level. In many ways, these debates preceded similar discussions in the central political arenas. This relates to our argument that historians should emphasise the ‘welfare city’ rather than the ‘welfare state’.
Fourth, we want to show and critically discuss whether there has been a distinct Nordic model for the development of municipal welfare services. We believe that we can identify a number of important differences compared to other European capitals. One is the lack of a united conservative front against the expansion of municipal services. Even right-wing politicians have increasingly become an active part of the movement towards rational planning and political control of urban growth. Another is that we can see how the importance of the social issue varied greatly in different contexts. On some occasions, social considerations were ever-present in the debates, while on others they were relegated to the background.
Finally, our research has also produced interesting results in relation to voting reform and the increasing politicisation of urban governance. We can show empirically that issues of infrastructure and urban citizenship were articulated in city council debates even before the party-political breakthrough. Urban citizenship was a driving factor, not a side effect, of the suffrage struggle.