Report highlights artists' social security problems

A government-commissioned report, published in March 2003, examines the problems faced by professional artists in the Swedish social security, unemployment insurance and tax systems. According to the report, these problems are often caused by a lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of the relevant authorities regarding artists’ working and living conditions. Increased competence and a more coordinated handling of artists’ cases could resolve many of the problems, the commissioner states.

In March 2003, a government-appointed commissioner presented a report on 'Artists and the social security systems' (Konstnärerna och trygghetssystemen, SOU 2003: 21). According to his remit (Kommittédirektiv 2001:90), the commissioner was charged with investigating whether professional artists meet with particular problems in the social security system and, if so, identifying the causes of these problems. In presenting his findings, commissioner Anders Forsman concluded that artists are 'atypical' in relation to the system and do indeed encounter many problems. According to the report, most of the problems follow from the application of various laws and regulations and not from the legal framework itself. A considerable number of cases are taken to court, which is costly both for the individual and for society. No common view of how to deal with artists' problems exists among the various systems, and there is no coordination among them. Until such a coordinated view is established, there will never be any increased knowledge and the problems of application will never be overcome, the commissioner concludes.

Problems for artists

There were about 25,000 professional artists in Sweden in the late 1990s, according to a 1997 survey on 'Work for artists' (Arbete åt konstnärer, SOU 1997: 183). Of these, 50% were freelance workers, almost 40% were self-employed and a mere 10% were employed on open-ended contracts. Moreover, they often move back and forth between self-employment and ordinary employment, and the employment is often of short duration. Quite often artists are forced to become self-employed (ie they are paid on the basis of invoices), rather than being accepted as employees by those who hire them. This causes problems in relation to the social insurance system, the tax system and the unemployment insurance system.

In his 2003 report, Mr Forsman presents a number of examples where artists have had a hard time arguing their case in terms of social security entitlement. Freelance artists, for instance, constantly run the risk of losing the right to unemployment benefits because they are regarded as self-employed by the unemployment insurance authorities. Young dancers also have problems with the unemployment insurance rules affecting young people. Professionally educated dancers often qualify when they are 20 years' old. However, under the unemployment insurance rules, people aged under 25 are regarded as being long-term unemployed after a mere 100 days of unemployment and thus pushed into schemes to increase and broaden their labour market skills. Young dancers thus have limited possibilities of even starting a career, as any period of unemployment may force them into other work. The varying practices with regard to when maternity allowance is paid out also affects female artists. The social insurance system does not take account of the fact that in some professions, for instance actors or dancers, it could be impossible to work even in the early days of a pregnancy.

Furthermore, the tax system restricts artists’ possibilities of deducting costs for workplaces in their homes. The accepted standard deduction has also not been upgraded in cash terms, and has been the same for the last 18 years.

In terms of retirement, artists are among the groups that could be seen as losers after the recent pension reform (SE9811120F), according to Mr Forsman. Those groups of artists who take long to become established and/or retire early, such as opera singers or dancers, lose between 12% and 42% of their pension entitlement in comparison to the old system. Under the old scheme, only the 15 best-earning working years were used as the basis for calculating pensions, but now accumulated income over a worker's whole working life decides the pension. A further problem is that many grants to artists are not considered as pensionable income. Artists without open-ended employment also have limited possibilities of entering collectively-agreed supplementary pension schemes, especially when working freelance.

Finally, freelance or self-employed work in the arts often generates only a small income while the costs of material, rent etc are relatively high. Since all the social security systems are designed to compensate benefit recipients for estimated or actual loss of income, the benefits received by artists is often too low to live on.

Possible solutions

The problems resulting from the generally low income among artists cannot be resolved without altering the very foundation of the Swedish welfare system, Mr Forsman acknowledges. He states, however, that more money perhaps ought to be directed to professional artists in the form of a basic wage or grants, since 'too low incomes are an artistic policy and thereby a cultural policy problem'.

Easier to resolve are the problems emanating from inflexibility or lack of knowledge on part of the relevant authorities. Mr Forsman sees the Labour Market Board (Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen, AMS) as a model, as it has decided to treat artists as a specific group working under special conditions. This ought to serve as guidance for the social insurance and the tax authorities. Furthermore, it is recommended that the Arts Grants Committee (Konstnärsnämnden) - which awards government grants to individual artists - should be strengthened and work in alliance with the artists’ own organisations to monitor the issues and work for a more understanding and coordinated view of artists' work. Disseminating information to the artists themselves, to counter their 'administrative deficiency', is also seen as important. Last but not least, Mr Forsman points to the many previous commissions which have examined almost the same problems - since at least 1975, the same issues have been investigated at more or less regular intervals. In order to avoid the latest report being followed by yet another investigation seeking to resolve the same problems, the government should now consider a more coordinated system for dealing with artists in the social security system.

Commentary

In a first comment on the report, the Actors’ Union (Teaterförbundet, TF) underlined that artists often 'fall between stools' in the social security systems and more often than not suffer 'a Kafkaesque insecurity regarding the rights of the individual'. The new report clearly supports this view and thus ought to lead to a number of measures on the part of both parliament and the government, TF says.

It is not often that a public investigation uses such straightforward language as the 'Artists and the social security systems' report does. Mr Forsman writes, for instance, that: 'it is obviously unsatisfactory that both individual artists and their organisations find it hard to make reasonable estimations of what the calculated sickness benefits would amount to'; and, commenting on the commonly refused tax deductions for theatre tickets, CDs or books about art, 'it is absurd to look at this as private consumption. These are necessary investments in the artist’s own artistic development.'

When dealing with the 'atypical' case of artists, the relevant authorities often take too long, according to the commissioner. Mr Forsman states that all the problems concerning artists and the tax system still apply today despite previous commissions pointing to them. There is still no agreement on justified tax deductions for workplaces or for traveling while working, which puts greater pressure on self-employed artists than on other groups of self-employed people.

Why not simply deal with the particular circumstances of professional artists in an annex to the regulations of the social insurance, tax or unemployment insurance systems? Mr Forsman asks. It is seldom the legislation itself that poses the problems, but the applications of the laws and regulations. A good example of this is that artists with sufficient income to hire accountants almost never end up in a dispute with the tax authorities. Few artists however have the means for such professional help. Increased competence among the authorities and a more coordinated handling of artists’ cases thus ought to be considered essential to put an end to insecurity and the risks of discriminatory treatment. (Ann-Britt Hellmark, Arbetslivsinstitutet)