On the 23rd of May 2025, the rEUsilience National Event in Sweden focused on childhood poverty in Sweden, where rEUsilience research insights regarding the compounded challenges for families in vulnerable situations were presented, followed by a panel discussion concerning the causes, consequences and possible solutions to families facing economic vulnerability in Sweden.
The introductory talks by rEUsilience joint co-ordinator Rense Nieuwenhuis and researcher Siddartha Aradhya started off by the observation that childhood poverty in Sweden is substantially higher compared to the Nordic neighbours, and that it should be acknowledged as a social problem. One of the main explanations given to this higher poverty rate in Sweden is the fact that social assistance and unemployment benefits have not kept up with wages, making ends meet difficult in a society with high living standards. This was also one of the insights that came to the forefront in the focus-group interviews: if cost come together and compound, it heightens an initial vulnerability in order to keep up with peers. Additionality, it is inevitable that impossible choices come up under vulnerable conditions, pushing people in dilemmas or trilemmas; for example, a single mother who has to choose between working for an income or caring for a child who is developing a diagnosis. Furthermore, apart from the risk of accumulation of problems when families find themselves in vulnerable situations, the researchers discussed that there seems to be substantial barriers to changing one’s situation. The example was discussed of the snowball effect that can occur during waiting times and processing periods if conditions become even worse and thus might change critically even before the families get the help they need. The poverty rate among families – in this case, where children have parents born in countries outside Sweden – is even more alarming. While there are substantial differences based on migration background, the most critical case is children to parents immigrated from Somalia, with 40-50 percent of children living in relative poverty.
The researchers concluded by emphasising that there is considerable risk that poverty exhibits intergenerational persistence, thereby initiating a cycle of disadvantage that significantly constrains the life chances and social mobility of children in Sweden. Considerations for bringing change in this matter were highlighted: If we want to reduce poverty, we should increase, not only levels, but also access to measures of social protection.
After the introductory talks, Linn Nordli from SOS Barnbyar moderated a panel discussion with academics and representatives of Civil Society in Sweden: Klara Hussénius (Stockholm University), Anna Tegunimataka (Lund University), Lovisa Backman (Stockholm University), and Sofie Schwertner (Barn till ensamma mammor) who has been a value member of the rEUsilience Policy Lab Stakeholder Panels. The panel discussion focused on interventions and their effectiveness for reducing economic vulnerability. While employment and education account for substantial improvements in outcomes, a significant proportion of adversity remains unexplained. This residual disadvantage may be attributable to discrimination and other intangible or non-measurable factors.
For example, in Sweden, societal norms and structural expectations make it particularly difficult to support a family without full-time employment, creating a paradox of time and financial strain. Compounding this are the pervasive societal norms and high expectations surrounding parenthood, ideals that are often unrealistic and particularly burdensome for single parents, but who are expected to fulfil multiple roles without adequate structural or normative support. The panel therefore underlined also the importance of family policies that work for different families (e.g. single parent families).
Moreover, the panellist identified that the social assistance schemes differ greatly from other protection systems in Sweden as it is not a state-responsibility but up to the municipalities. Consequently, access to these systems is uneven, and significant issues related to equity and legal certainty arise in the way they are implemented across different social services offices, creating disparities in rules and implementation across the country.
Related to access to systems, the panellists also raised discussion on how information (e.g. about benefits, insurance systems, preschool, etc.) is disseminated to groups living in socio-economic exclusion. Discussions centred around the necessity of adapting information to the target group (e.g. languages, format, physical, digital, illiteracy, etc.).
The panel also highlighted other possible interventions that can support vulnerable families and children’s lives in several ways, for example the role of municipalities in having targeted measures for children. The panel discussion underscored the need of implementing a holistic view of families and their situation which may concern housing (e.g. subsidies that do not keep up), coverage of public transport costs, ensuring that children have adult role models (e.g. through recreational activities), and having family centres which serve as a meeting place between different societal functions starting from the family’s and child’s needs from a holistic perspective.
The panel concluded by discussing current political and public views and attitudes towards people in vulnerable situations. A common objection in the political discourse regarding the design of the benefit system is that it is overly generous, thereby reducing individuals’ motivation to seek employment. However, the panel argued that the Swedish system today already encourages work more than ever, and society broadly speaking supports people who work rather than those who do not. Prejudices and narratives on people in vulnerability shapes the attitudes towards these groups, but discussions also focused on ways in how one can change that picture. “It concerns what places there are to meet and integrate, but also that those in society who are more privileged could show more interest and empathy for those who are in more vulnerable situations.”, the panel concluded.
This national event focused on childhood poverty and its causes and consequences, but also the possible interventions to break the cycle of disadvantages and intergenerational deprivation. We sincerely thank all the panellists and participants for the highly relevant insights and participation to this panel discussion.