Poverty: an integration issue – Part 4 – the case of Norway
Now, Norway presents a special case. The Cinderella story, of a country that was
“poor” and thanks to the oil wealth became suddenly “rich”. However, Norway was
never really poor but simply poorer than other European countries. It was a
“bønderland”, meaning a “farmer land”. Development came relatively late to
Norway. Until the 1980s, Argentina had actually a better economic situation than
Norway. Food was limited to local goods and it was expensive to travel. Pizza
came to Norway only in the year 1995. Television had only one Norwegian, plus
two Swedish channels in the 1980s. My mother, who moved permanently from
Norway to Argentina in the 1970s, was clear about Argentina being a better place
to live than Norway in that period. So were of course my Norwegian grandparents,
who visited Norway quite often. Telephone conversations were a constant between
my Norwegian grandmother and her sister in Norway, very competitive about
which was the “best place to live”. “We have mountains”, came the answer from
my grandmother’s sister: here as well, would my grandmother say. “We have a big
house”, “So do we”. And so on… Apparently the longing for becoming the world’s
best country also has historical roots…
See the following chart to understand the GDP explosion, following the oil boom in
the late 1990s. GDP more than doubled. However, population did not grow as
much. Consider that, from the 1970s to today, there has been a 25% increase.
Again, compared to other European countries, or to world developments, this is
nothing. Since the 1970s, most countries doubled population and some countries
even tripled. Remember that GDP x capita is: GDP / population. So a steep GDP
growth, but a mild population growth, explain how you can suddenly become
“rich” as a country. A country’s wealth is usually measured in GDP terms.
However, despite being really very few immigrants compared to the population,
ethnical Norwegians really hate immigrants (generally speaking). An antiimmigrant sentiment has developed the last 10 years, social exclusion beginning to
be noticeable.22 Though indigency does not exist in Norway, poverty does exist. In
Oslo, 8,3% of the population is poor, and child poverty is on the rise.[23]
Consider that if you are born in Norway to two immigrant parents you are consider
a “foreign” for the statistics.[24] This number rises to 815.000 today, including both
1st and 2nd generation immigrants. Only in 2010, this number amounted only to
400.000 people. You can imagine then what a shock it is for “ethnical” norwegians.
Still, it is a low number compared to most european countries that have seen much
higher levels of migrations for historical reasons. The integration issues that
Norway faces are not such a long term thing, since the children of the immigrants
are also excluded (not just the immigrants). Things have actually changed a lot
since 2010 until now, and in a 5 to 10-year perspective the guettos will surely start
forming. Again to understand this we will have to do some history.
Many discussions are on the table as to what it means to be “Norwegian”, or what
norwegian culture is all about. Consider that it is a relatively new country, gaining
it’s independence on 7th of june 1905. Cultural differences appear even within the
country. Even if the country appears divided in 5: North, Mid, West, South and
East Norway, the main division is between “East and West”. The East has received
profound Danish influence due to the union with Denmark, and more recently
Swedish influence due the union with Sweden. Swedish influence could be also
profound in the Mid (Trøndelag area). This can also be seen in the root of the
language. Bokmål, Norway’s official language, is very close to danish on it’s
written form, but verbally closer to Swedish. In the North, West and South people
speak much stronger dialects. The language there is not as “contaminated”, and it is
closer to the original language the vikings used to speak, know today as “Old
Norse”. Nynorsk, Norway’s 2nd official language, is a joint of different regional
dialects and a little closer to the verbal norwegian that is used in those regions.
Again, culturally speaking, these regions are closer to Iceland. People will say that
the link between Norway and Iceland was broken a 1000 years ago, but it is not so.
If not “polluted” by migration, culture will persist. Take examples from ancient
history: did the Egyptians “change” in hundreds of years of existence? Surely not.
Have Icelanders “changed”? Culturally speaking, I would assume that they haven’t.
Consider that most immigrants migrate to big cities, and usually stay there. So the
integration issues that I discuss usually pertain mainly big cities. This is the same in
any country. So when people speak about poverty in Argentina, usually they refer
to poverty around the “Greater Buenos Aires” area. Consider as well that, although
a nation can be “rich”, money will not solve it’s integration issues, which are in the
end the cause of poverty once a country has achieved a certain degree of
development. Some countries though, as explained before, are better at integrating
immigrants than others. The US and the UK, with more imperialistic cultures, have
a more global view and have been better at integration. However, strong integration
issues still persist. In the city of New York, for example, half of the population live
near poverty.[25] “Asian-americans” and “Hispanic” are today the most affected. It
used to be afro-americans but they did a very good job at ascending in society, to a
certain degree of course.
Conclusion: While social integration remains an issue in all cultures and all
societies, Germanic countries are much tougher at integration. And within the
Germanic countries, Norway is probably the most closed. The perspective then
remains quite gloomy, as real immigration (which hasn’t happened yet, and cannot
really be stopped regardless of people’s complaints) starts to flood the country.
Only 40 years ago, people from Northern Norway were discriminated when
looking for work in Oslo. Today, it has become Swedish and Norwegian against the
world. Even Danish are discriminated. But of course, Northern Europeans, plus
British, French and Polish have it relatively ok. Social segregation is very
noticeable in Oslo city, where the immigrants and their children live in the city
center wheareas ethnical norwegians have moved to West Oslo. This also impacts
the job market. Where you live will also restrict the the job seeker to a certain type
of job.[26] As in the case of Argentina, where the rich people from Northern Buenos
Aires know each other, trust each other and give jobs to one another, in Norway the
people from West Oslo also know each other, trust each other and give work to one
another. This limits possibilities of social ascension, condemning people to a
certain standard of living, no matter how good they are or not. So we can see how
having a fantastic welfare system does not really work as an equalizer of
opportunities. Social exclusion, social classes, discrimination, contacts, who you are married to, which family you belong to, racism,
favours, happens everywhere to a certain degree, even in the “best country to live”.
“Annerledes land” (the land of the different, as Norway calls itself), is not as
different as people think.
No comments:
Post a Comment