VAM-Velferd, arbeid og migrasjon

The overall research question is whether Norwegian households are adequately protected against financial risk. The study is institutional, partly comparative (Norway, Denmark and the UK), and based on mortgage and financial advice as cases. Both the global economy and a number of national economies (including the Norwegian) were de-regulated and restructured during the 1980s and 1990s. This opened for a freer flow of capital be-tween countries, and gave the financial sector a key role in generating economic growth and wel-fare. The increased importance of the financial sector is referred to as 'financialization'. When wel-fare is financialized, it is made dependent on the developments in financial markets. For states, this involves, borrowing on international financial markets to fund welfare services. For households, it involves a transition to so-called 'asset-based welfare' ? i.e. the idea that most people can fend for themselves by borrowing and investing in marketable values. In most countries - perhaps particu-larly in Norway - this was tantamount to taking out home loans. As a consequence, the household economy was financialized as well. The financial crisis has shown that when countries are unable to handle their financial obligations, the welfare systems break down. And when households cannot service their loans, one is ultimately in danger of losing the cornerstone of social life: the home. Households are primarily linked to the financialized economy through the role of consumers of financial products. We have studied the consequences of this from four main approaches. One is housing and mortgages, where the topics have been Norwegian sub-prime loans (so-called start-up loans), how banks sell mortgages and why Norwegian households are willing to take up such large mortgages. We have found an extensive investment ideology among homeowners in Norway, Denmark and the UK - an ideology that is more prominent in Norway than in the other countries. A significant part of the Norwegian households? consumption is financed through mortgages and re-mortgaging. Around half of those who have taken out mortgages in the past five years, used it solely for consumption purposes. We have also seen that the banks' appetite for risk varies with the competitive situation in the markets where they operate. The second approach is regulation. Here we have studied the duty to dissuade as a measure to protect households against taking up excessive loans. Our analyses show that the duty does not function in legal terms, since those who are dissuaded and take up the loan anyway, must waive their right to appeal on irresponsible lending. On the other hand, the duty to dissuade has also re-sulted in better credit practices. Qualitative interviews with money advisors in small, medium and large banks around the country show that counselling regarding mortgage holds a high standard. Still, the practice varies with respect to the FSA recommended guidelines for lending. It is paradoxical that those who need protection most lose certain legal rights, while those who need it the least are better protected. The third approach is the money advice services in the bank prior to borrowing, and problem-solving debt advice in the public sector after payment problems have occurred. Some of the anal-yses are comparative. We also made a dive into some future-oriented projects in NAV aiming at help shaping future debt advice services. Moreover, a review of the educational programs of for social workers and bank employees was conducted to assess the prospects for a professionalization of money advice services across the private and public sectors. A main finding is that the scale of the public services is too weak, and that the education of social workers does not put sufficient emphasis on private finances. It's a long way to a professionalization in the area of money advice. The fourth approach is exit opportunities out of financial difficulties. We have submitted several studies around debt and payment problems ? including applications for debt settlements and financial risks associated with different types of loans at different stages in life. We have argued the necessity to institutionalise effective ways out of financial problems, and pointed out that existing exit opportunities are too narrowly defined in Norway. The main conclusion is that consumers are not adequately protected against financial risk. The pro-ject has disseminated the results through more than 50 lectures at home and abroad. There have also been held two conferences ? one for money advisers in Norway titled 'Debt and social re-sponsibility: do we need new forms of cooperation?', and one for Nordic welfare researchers titled 'Borrowing as a Source of Social Welfare'. Project homepage: http://sifo.no/financialization/

This project is based on the idea that the liberalisation of people's access to credit fundamentally changed the way social welfare and risks are produced and distributed. The overall research question is how well individual households are protected again st financial risks within the frameworks of the contemporary Norwegian welfare state. The analysis is carried out in three steps. Firstly, the institutionalisation of financial counselling is addressed. The main focus is on social inclusion and exclusion mechanisms, including the emergence of market-based welfare regimes, the formal regulation of financial counselling within such frameworks and individual-level self-governance for taking on risks. Secondly, the financial counselling service itself is stud ied in detail. Here, the main focus is on financial advice before loans are taken out and money advice after payment problems have occurred, and the interrelationship between the two types of counselling. Thirdly, the project looks at implications and pot entials for improving existing practices. This is a comparative study of financial counselling in Norway, Denmark and UK. The main focus of the study is the case of Norway. The comparative design implies to compare existing types of services within this case. It further implies to compare the Norwegian service provision with those of Denmark and the UK in order to learn from the differences and generate new knowledge about the workings of the Norwegian context. This raises the need for a multi-methodolog ical approach using qualitative and quantitative techniques based on a variety of data sources, partly found in existing registries, including historical data; political debates; existing research; registry data provided by debt collectors and The Norwegi an State Housing Bank; interviews with key informants in the political and administrative system; surveys among advisors in banks, local NAV directors and users of financial counselling in the municipalities.