Is the Digitalisation of Welfare Creating New Social Risks? The Cases of the UK, Finland and Sweden

Öz

Existing social policy literature does not adequately explain how welfare states are changing today in the digital age. However, we are witnessing how digitalisation is fundamentally shifting the policy paradigms of welfare states in today's living conditions. The transition to data-driven systems, especially in public administration, has been one of the important agenda items of many countries for some time. Such a landscape has provided a suitable ground for discussing some opportunities and challenges for traditional welfare states. The main theme of these debates is centred around the question "are traditional welfare states transforming?".This article traces the course of digitalisation in social policy and analyses the opportunities and challenges faced by countries implementing digital social policy today in a descriptive manner. The article is organised in three main parts. In the first part, the digital welfare state is conceptually analysed by discussing the course of digitalisation in social policy and the turning points on the road to digitalisation. In the second part, the opportunities, risks and dilemmas of the digital welfare state are discussed. In the last section, the digital welfare state practices of the UK, Finland and Sweden are analysed. The findings of the research indicate that digital welfare systems bring serious dilemmas and risks as well as advantages. The research shows that digital welfare systems tend to create "new social risks".

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social Policy
• Digital Welfare
• Welfare state
• Digital Inequality.

REFAHIN DİJİTALLEŞMESİ YENİ SOSYAL RİSKLERİ Mİ ORTAYA ÇIKARIYOR? İNGİLTERE, FİNLANDİYA VE İSVEÇ ÖRNEKLERİ

Öz

Mevcut sosyal politika literatürü, refah devletlerinin dijital çağda bugün nasıl değiştiğini yeterince açıklamıyor. Ancak günümüz yaşam koşullarında dijitalleşmenin refah devletlerinin politika paradigmalarını nasıl temelden değiştirdiğine tanık oluyoruz. Özellikle kamu yönetiminde veri odaklı sistemlere geçiş, bir süredir birçok ülkenin önemli gündem maddelerinden biri. Böyle bir manzara, geleneksel refah devletlerine yönelik bazı fırsatların ve zorlukların tartışılması için uygun bir zemin hazırlamıştır. Bu tartışmaların ana teması “geleneksel refah devletleri dönüşüyor mu?” sorusu etrafında yoğunlaşıyor. Bu makale, sosyal politikada dijitalleşmenin seyrini takip etmekte ve günümüzde dijital sosyal politikayı uygulayan ülkelerin karşılaştığı fırsatları ve zorlukları betimsel bir şekilde analiz etmektedir. Makale üç ana bölüm halinde düzenlenmiştir. İlk bölümde sosyal politikada dijitalleşmenin seyri ve dijitalleşme yolundaki dönüm noktaları tartışılarak dijital refah devleti kavramsal olarak analiz ediliyor. İkinci bölümde dijital refah devletinin fırsatları, riskleri ve ikilemleri tartışılıyor. Son bölümde ise İngiltere, Finlandiya ve İsveç'in dijital refah devleti uygulamaları analiz edilmektedir. Araştırmanın bulguları, dijital refah sistemlerinin avantajların yanı sıra ciddi ikilemleri ve riskleri de beraberinde getirdiğini göstermektedir. Araştırma, dijital refah sistemlerinin "yeni sosyal riskler" yaratma eğiliminde olduğunu gösteriyor.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal Politika
• Dijital Refah
• Refah Devleti
• Dijital Eşitsizlik.

Kaynakça

1. Alston, P. (2019). Report of the Special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, https://www.apc.org/en/news/extreme-poverty-and-digital-welfare-new-report-un-special-rapporteur-extreme-poverty-raises
2. Andersson, O., Sjögren, J., & Åsberg, H. (2017). Nätläkarbolagen dränerar en underfinansierad primärvård, https://www.dn.se/debatt/natlakarbolagen-dranerar-en-underfinansierad-primarvard/
3. Archenaa, J., & Anita, E. M. (2015). A Survey of big data analytics in healthcare and government. Procedia Computer Science, 50, 408–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.04.021
4. Arıcı, K. (1999). Sosyal güvenlik dersleri. Ankara: Sarfın Ofset.
5. Beck, U. (1992). From industrial society to the risk society: Questions of survival, social structure and ecological enlightenment. Theory, Culture & Society, 9(1), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327692009001006
6. Black, A., Sahama, T., & Gajanayake, R. (2014). eHealth-as-a-Service (eHaaS): A data-driven decision making approach in Australian context. In E-Health–For Continuity Of Care (pp. 915-919). IOS Press.
7. Blix, M., & Jeansson, J. (2018). Telemedicine and the welfare state,https://www.ifn.se/media/oavp05tg/2019-blix-jeansson-telemedicine-and-the-welfare-state.pdf
8. Bonoli, G. (2007). Time matters: Postindustrialization, new social risks, and welfare state adaptation in advanced industrial democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 40(5), 495-520.

9. Buchert, U., Kemppainen, L., Olakivi, A., Wrede, S., & Kouvonen, A. (2022). Is digitalisation of public health and social welfare services reinforcing social exclusion? The case of Russian-speaking older migrants in Finland. Critical Social Policy, 43(3), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183221105035
10. Buhr, D. (2017). What about welfare 4.0?. In CESifo Forum (Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 15-24). München: ifo Institut-Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität München.
11. Carney, T. (2019). Robo-Debt Illegality: The seven veils of failed guarantees of the rule of law?. Alternative Law Journal, 44(1), 4-10.
12. Choi, Y. J., Kühner, S., & Shi, S. J. (2022). From “new social risks” to “Covid social risks”: The challenges for inclusive society in South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan Amid the Pandemic. Policy and Society, 41(2), 260-274.
13. Clasen, J., & D. Clegg. (2011). Regulating the risk of unemployment: National Adaptations to Post-Industrial Labour Markets in Europe. Oxford University Press.
14. Coles-Kemp, L., Ashenden, D., Morris, A., & Yuille, J. (2020). Digital welfare: Designing for more nuanced forms of access. Policy Design and Practice, 3(2), 177-188.
15. Comandé, G., Nocco, L., & Peigné, V. (2015). An empirical study of healthcare providers and patients׳ perceptions of electronic health records. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 59, 194-201.
16. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2018). Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media, 20(4), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418796632
17. Crato, N., & Paruolo, P. (2019). Data-driven policy impact evaluation: How access to microdata is transforming policy design (p. 346). Springer Nature.
18. Dai, X. (2018). Toward a reputation state: The social credit system project of China. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3193577
19. Degryse, C. (2016). Digitalisation of the economy and its impact on labour markets. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2730550
20. Dencik, L. (2022). The Datafied Welfare State: A perspective from the UK. In new perspectives in critical data studies: The Ambivalences of Data Power. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
21. Dencik, L., & Kaun, A. (2020). Datafication and the welfare state. Global Perspectives, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2020.12912
22. Dermont, C., & Weisstanner, D. (2020). Automation and the future of the welfare state: basic income as a response to technological change? Political Research Exchange, 2(1), 1757387. https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736x.2020.1757387
23. DESI. (2022a). Digital economy and society index (DESI) 2022 Finland, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/desi-finland
24. DESI. (2022b). Digital economy and society index (DESI) 2022 Sweden, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-economy-and-society-index-desi-2022
25. Eichhorst, W., Hemerijck, A., & Scalise, G. (2020). Welfare states, labor markets, social investment and the digital transformation. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3631602
26. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
27. Esping-Andersen, G., & Korpi, W. (1986). From poor relief to ınstitutional welfare states: The development of Scandinavian social policy. International Journal of Sociology, 16(3–4), 39–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/15579336.1986.11769910
28. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
29. Galbraith, J. K. (1954). The great crash, 1929. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
30. Germundsson, N. (2022). Promoting the digital future: the construction of digital automation in Swedish policy discourse on social assistance. Critical Policy Studies, 16(4), 478–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2021.2022507
31. Gonzalez Vazquez, I. G., Milasi, S., Gomez, S. C., Napierala, J., Bottcher, N. R., Jonkers, K., & Vuorikari, R. (2019). The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age. JRC Science for Policy Report.
32. Gough, I. (2013). Climate change, social policy, and global governance. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 29(3), 185-203.
33. Gough, I. (2016). Welfare states and environmental states: A Comparative Analysis. Environmental Politics, 25(1), 24-47.
34. Gökbunar, R., Özdemir, H., & Alparslan, U. (2008). Küreselleşme kıskacındaki refah devletinde sosyal refah harcamaları. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 9(2), 158-173.
35. Greener, I. (2022). Welfare states in the 21st century: The new five giants confronting societal progress. Edward Elgar Publishing.
36. Greve, B. (2019). The digital economy and the future of European welfare states. International Social Security Review, 72(3), 79-94.
37. Gulliver, R., Fahmi, M., & Abramson, D. (2021). Technical considerations when implementing digital infrastructure for social policy. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 269-287.
38. Gümüş, İ. (2018). Tarihsel perspektifte refah devleti: Doğuş, yükseliş ve yeniden yapılanma süreci. Journal of Political Administrative and Local Studies, 1(1), 33-66.
39. Günther, W. A., Mehrizi, M. H. R., Huysman, M., & Feldberg, F. (2017). Debating big data: A literature review on realizing value from big data. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(3), 191-209.
40. Hand, L. C., & Ching, B. D. (2020). Maintaining neutrality: A Sentiment analysis of police agency Facebook pages before and after a fatal officer-involved shooting of a citizen. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101420.
41. Hannah-Moffat, K. (2019). Algorithmic risk governance: Big data analytics, race and information activism in criminal justice debates. Theoretical Criminology, 23(4), 453-470.
42. Hartmann, K., & Wenzelburger, G. (2021). Uncertainty, risk and the use of algorithms in policy decisions: A case study on criminal justice in the USA. Policy Sciences, 54, 269-287.
43. Helsper, E. (2021). The digital disconnect: The social causes and consequences of digital inequalities. The Digital Disconnect, 1-232.
44. Hemerijck, A. (Ed.). (2017). The uses of social investment. Oxford University Press.
45. Henley, J., & Booth, R. (2020). Welfare surveillance system violates human rights, Dutch court rules. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/welfare-surveillance-system-violates-human-rights-dutch-court-rules
46. Heponiemi, T., Gluschkoff, K., Leemann, L., Manderbacka, K., Aalto, A. M., & Hyppönen, H. (2023). Digital inequality in Finland: Access, skills and attitudes as social impact mediators. New Media & Society, 25(9), 2475-2491.
47. Hussénius, K. (2021). Intersectional patterns of social assistance eligibility in Sweden. Nordic Social Work Research, 11(1), 19-33.
48. IDS. (2022). Digital poverty in the UK, https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/digital-poverty-in-the-uk-accessible-version/
49. Jørgensen, R. F. (2021). Data and rights in the digital welfare state: The case of Denmark. Information, Communication & Society, 1-16.
50. Kehl, D. L., & Kessler, S. A. (2017). Algorithms in the criminal justice system: Assessing the use of risk assessments in sentencing, https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33746041/2017-07_responsivecommunities_2.pdf
51. Kela (2020). Kela’s annual report 2020, https://www.kela.fi/documents/10180/17802081/Kelan+vuosi+2020.pdf/0e40794f-3a1c-4d13–9d40-a8661c434f00
52. Kelly, A. (2021). A tale of two algorithms: The appeal and repeal of calculated grades systems in England and Ireland in 2020. British Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 725-741.
53. Kim, E., Lee, B., & Menon, N. M. (2009). Social welfare implications of the digital divide. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 377-386.
54. Larasati, Z. W., Yuda, T. K., & Syafa'at, A. R. (2023). Digital welfare state and problem arising: An exploration and future research agenda. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 43(5/6), 537-549.
55. Larsson, A. (2019). A Journey of a thousand miles: An introduction to the digitalization of labor. The Digital Transformation of Labor. Routledge. Larsson, K. K., & Haldar, M. (2021). Can computers automate welfare? Norwegian efforts to make welfare policy more effective. Journal of Extreme Anthropology, 5(1), 56-77.
56. Lim, S. (2020). Embedding technological transformation: The welfare state and citizen attitudes toward technology. European Political Science Review, 12(1), 67-89.
57. Lindgren, I., Madsen, C. Ø., Hofmann, S., & Melin, U. (2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 427-436.
58. Mann, M. (2020). Technological politics of automated welfare surveillance: Social (And Data) justice through critical qualitative inquiry. Global Perspectives, 1(1).
59. Mateescu, A. (2021). Electronic Visit Verification: The Weight of Surveillance and the Fracturing of Care. Available at SSRN 4181895.
60. Mateescu, A. (2021). Electronic visit verification: The weight of surveillance and the fracturing of care. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4181895
61. Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385.
62. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, Finland. (2017). Finland’s age of artificial intelligence: turning Finland into a leading country in the application of artificial intelligence: Objective and recommendations for measures,https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/160391/TEMrap_47_2017_verkkojulkaisu.pdf
63. Ministry of Finance. (2020). Digitalization of the public administration (julkisen hallinnon digitalisaatio), http://www.vm.fi/digitalisaatio
64. Mohr, N. M., Young, T., Harland, K. K., Skow, B., Wittrock, A., Bell, A., & Ward, M. M. (2018). Emergency department telemedicine shortens rural time-to-provider and emergency department transfer times. Telemedicine and e-Health, 24(8), 582-593.
65. NHS. (2023). Digital transformation in the NHS, https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40637/documents/198145/default/
66. Notley, T., & Foth, M. (2008). Extending Australia's digital divide policy: An examination of the value of social inclusion and social capital policy frameworks. Australian Social Policy, (7), 87-110.
67. OECD. (2019). Under pressure: The squeezed middle class. Paris: OECD Publishing.
68. Ofcom. (2022). Digital exclusion a review of ofcom’s research on digital exclusion among adults in the UK, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/234364/digital-exclusion-review-2022.pdf
69. Offe, C. (1984). Contradictions of the welfare state. Cambridge. Özdemir, S. (2009). Küreselleşme ve refah devletleri üzerindeki etkileri. Journal of Social Policy Conferences, 57(1), 55-86.
70. Palier, B. (2019). Work, social protection and the middle classes: What future in the digital age?. International Social Security Review, 72(3), 113-133.
71. Pasi, G., & Misuraca, G. (2020). Welfare 2.0: Future scenarios of social protection systems in the digital age. Policy Design and Practice, 3(2), 163-176.
72. Petropoulos, G., Marcus, J. S., Moës, N., & Bergamini, E. (2019). Digitalisation and European Welfare States. Brussels: Bruegel.
73. Pissin, A. (2020). Digital welfare for children in China: Human needs and sustainability. Critical Social Policy, 40(4), 505-525.
74. Ranerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2022). Digital discretion: Unpacking human and technological agency in automated decision making in Sweden’s social services. Social Science Computer Review, 40(2), 445-461.
75. Rule, J. B. (1973). Private lives. Public Surveillance: Social Control in the Information Age. London: Allen Lane.
76. Schou, J., & Hjelholt, M. (2018). Digital citizenship and neoliberalization: Governing digital citizens in Denmark. Citizenship Studies, 22(5), 507-522.
77. Schou, J., & Hjelholt, M. (2019). Digitalizing the welfare state: Citizenship discourses in Danish digitalization strategies from 2002 to 2015. Critical Policy Studies, 13(1), 3-22.
78. Schou, J., & Pors, A. S. (2019). Digital by default? A qualitative study of exclusion in digitalised welfare. Social policy & administration, 53(3), 464-477.
79. Scott, J. C. (2020). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.
80. STL. (2023). Bridging the digital divide in the UK, https://stl.tech/blog/bridging-the-digital-divide-in-the-uk/
81. Stranz, H., Karlsson, P., & Wiklund, S. (2017). The wide-meshed safety net. Decision-making on social assistance eligibility in Sweden. European Journal of Social Work, 20(5), 711-723.
82. Tangi, L., Benedetti, M., Gastaldi, L., Noci, G., & Russo, C. (2021). Mandatory provisioning of digital public services as a feasible service delivery strategy: Evidence from Italian local governments. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101543.
83. Taylor-Gooby, P. (Ed.). (2004). New risks, new welfare: The Transformation of the European welfare state. OUP Oxford.
84. Therborn, G. (1984). Classes and states welfare state developments, 1881–1981. Studies in Political Economy, 14(1), 7-41.
85. Thewissen, S., & Rueda, D. (2019). Automation and the welfare state: Technological change as a determinant of redistribution preferences. Comparative Political Studies, 52(2), 171-208.
86. Titmuss, R. M. (1975). Social policy: An introduction. NewYork: Pantheon Press.
87. Toh, A. (2019). The disastrous roll-out of the UK's digital welfare system is harming those most in need,https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/10/disastrous-roll-out-uks-digital-welfare-system-harming-those-most-need
88. Tuz, A. N. (2010). Küreselleşme sürecinde refah devletinin dönüşümü ve sivil toplum kuruluşlarının rolü, (yayınlanmamış doktora tezi), Marmara, İstanbul.
89. Vaithianathan, R., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Jiang, N., Nand, P., & Maloney, T. (2017). Developing predictive models to support child maltreatment hotline screening decisions: Allegheny county methodology and implementation. Center for Social Data Analytics.
90. Valenduc, G., & Vendramin, P. (2017). Digitalisation, between disruption and evolution. European Review of Labour and Research, 23(2), 121-134.
91. Van Lancker, W., & Van Hoyweghen, I. (2021). Targeting in social security and healthcare: The promises and pitfalls of digital technologies, https://socialprotection.org/es/discover/publications/targeting-social-security-and-healthcare-promises-and-pitfalls-digital
92. Varon, J., Peña, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence and consent: A feminist anti-colonial critique. Internet Policy Review, 10(4), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.4.1602
93. Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of business research, 122, 889-901.
94. Wildenbos, G. A., Maasri, K., Jaspers, M., & Peute, L. (2018). Older adults using a patient portal: registration and experiences, one year after implementation. DIGITAL HEALTH, 4, 205520761879788. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207618797883