Enkla jobb som integrationsredskap : En argumentationsanalys av den allmänna debatten i svensk kvällspress
(2017) SOPA63 20171School of Social Work
- Abstract
- The purpose of the study was to examine and evaluate different participants´ arguments in the public debate of low-wage jobs as tools of integration for migrants in relation to ideal type welfare regimes. Twenty one articles submitted by participants from the public were analyzed over the year 2011 and 2017 in the two largest outlets of popular press in Sweden: Aftonbladet and Expressen (including its subsidiaries). A descriptive, evaluative, and theoretical analysis were conducted which resulted in the following salient points. The main participants on the pro-side were political members of the right-wing coalition which is likely due to campaigning efforts for the upcoming 2018 election. The main participants on the contra-side had ties... (More)
- The purpose of the study was to examine and evaluate different participants´ arguments in the public debate of low-wage jobs as tools of integration for migrants in relation to ideal type welfare regimes. Twenty one articles submitted by participants from the public were analyzed over the year 2011 and 2017 in the two largest outlets of popular press in Sweden: Aftonbladet and Expressen (including its subsidiaries). A descriptive, evaluative, and theoretical analysis were conducted which resulted in the following salient points. The main participants on the pro-side were political members of the right-wing coalition which is likely due to campaigning efforts for the upcoming 2018 election. The main participants on the contra-side had ties to LO, the Swedish confederation of trade unions as well as a left-wing think tank. The main pro-arguments in the debate were: low-wage jobs are better than being dependent on social security benefits, low-wage jobs contribute to the welfare state, low-wage jobs are springboards to better employment, and on the opposing side: jobs already exist which must be filled, low-wage jobs lead to segregation, and low wage jobs lead to universally lower wages. Evaluated together for their rational appeal, using current research, the pro-side presented the most cogent argumentation. The theoretical analysis, based on Esping-Andersen´s pioneering research on welfare regimes, revealed that the goal of full employment was the main driving point on the pro-side while equal-pay and solidarity dominated the rationale on the contra-side. LO´s recent compromise of temporary low-wage jobs was seen as a sign that the Scandinavian “social investment” strategy in response to growing unemployment is losing traction which over time could herald a new and flexible labor market in Sweden. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8914462
- author
- Persson, Fredrik LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- SOPA63 20171
- year
- 2017
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- argumentation analysis, low-wage jobs, integration, welfare regimes
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8914462
- date added to LUP
- 2017-06-13 08:59:38
- date last changed
- 2017-06-13 08:59:38
@misc{8914462,
abstract = {{The purpose of the study was to examine and evaluate different participants´ arguments in the public debate of low-wage jobs as tools of integration for migrants in relation to ideal type welfare regimes. Twenty one articles submitted by participants from the public were analyzed over the year 2011 and 2017 in the two largest outlets of popular press in Sweden: Aftonbladet and Expressen (including its subsidiaries). A descriptive, evaluative, and theoretical analysis were conducted which resulted in the following salient points. The main participants on the pro-side were political members of the right-wing coalition which is likely due to campaigning efforts for the upcoming 2018 election. The main participants on the contra-side had ties to LO, the Swedish confederation of trade unions as well as a left-wing think tank. The main pro-arguments in the debate were: low-wage jobs are better than being dependent on social security benefits, low-wage jobs contribute to the welfare state, low-wage jobs are springboards to better employment, and on the opposing side: jobs already exist which must be filled, low-wage jobs lead to segregation, and low wage jobs lead to universally lower wages. Evaluated together for their rational appeal, using current research, the pro-side presented the most cogent argumentation. The theoretical analysis, based on Esping-Andersen´s pioneering research on welfare regimes, revealed that the goal of full employment was the main driving point on the pro-side while equal-pay and solidarity dominated the rationale on the contra-side. LO´s recent compromise of temporary low-wage jobs was seen as a sign that the Scandinavian “social investment” strategy in response to growing unemployment is losing traction which over time could herald a new and flexible labor market in Sweden.}},
author = {{Persson, Fredrik}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Enkla jobb som integrationsredskap : En argumentationsanalys av den allmänna debatten i svensk kvällspress}},
year = {{2017}},
}