There is a statistic that is used by Radical Feminists and Evangelical Christians to show that there was a reduction in demand in Sweden after the introduction of the Nordic model in 1999. The amount of prostitution decreased they say. The Nordic model punishes men who pay for sex.
There were surveys in Sweden before and after the introduction of the Nordic model, in 1996 and 2008. They will tell you that the proportion of men in Sweden who reported paying for sex dropped from 13% to 8% in that period. Or, to be more precise, from 12.7% to 7.6%. Sometimes the figures are 13.6% and 7.8% (I'm not sure what happened here but it seems the numbers were revised). Sometimes they put it differently and say that the numbers dropped from 1 in 8 men to 1 in 13.
This statistic is false. It is not the statistic for 'the proportion of men who reported paying for sex', it is the statistic for the proportion of men who reported paying for sex at some time in their life. We know the statistic for the proportion of men who reported paying for sex. In 1996 it was 1.3%. In 2008 it was 1.8%. So there was an increase, the opposite of what they tell people.
In a survey, you can ask people if they have ever done something. You can also ask them if they do it now. The problem is that if you ask people if they do something now, they might not know how to answer if they do it sporadically. So instead you ask them if they have done it in the past 6 months or in the last year. In the Swedish surveys they asked men and women if they had paid for sex in the previous 12 months and if the had paid for sex ever.
The men who had paid in the past year are deemed active sex buyers. This is called an incidence statistic, as opposed to a prevalence statistic. Incidence statistics are much better at tracking changes in behaviour. You may be wondering how it is possible for one of them to go up while the other goes down. You would expect the prevalence statistic to rise and fall with the incidence statistic but less and more slowly.
There are reasons that people have pointed out, which I shall outline below. One thing that everybody seems to be missing though is that the 1996 survey was different from the later ones because it is the only one that would have included old men who were young men during World War II. Sweden was neutral but they had large scale conscription. If there was a culture of paying for sex among Swedish conscripts in the 1940s this would show up in the 1996 survey but not subsequent ones because of the cut off age.
What do HIV Ireland have to say about this? In their 2016 report Potential Impact of The Swedish Model on Rates Of HIV/AIDS Among Sex Workers and Their Access To Healthcare they say this.
"Prior to the law coming into effect, no count of the number of sex workers was completed. An estimate based on a 1996 survey of 2810 people, with 187 responses stating they had paid for sex at one time or another, equating to 12.7% of the male respondents. The Swedish government then made claims based on this figure that over four hundred thousand men, over 18 years of age, had, at some point in their lives, paid for sex (Kulick, 2005). In 2008, a similar estimate was completed, and 2,500 surveys were sent out, but only 45.5% of them were returned. Although the study showed that 8% of male respondents had paid for sex during their lifetime, and the Swedish government claimed this represented a decrease in the number of clients, the author of the report stated that because the survey was not representative of men, in particular young men were underrepresented, and the large number of non-returns, no valid conclusion could be drawn. The author also indicates that perhaps men who were clients were unwilling to admit being so because of the criminal act it had become (Dodilett & Östergren, 2011: 15-16). It is therefore not possible to extrapolate from a non-representative survey to the entire Swedish male population, and nor is it possible to state that the number of clients reduced."
What does the NZPC Analysis of the Swedish law criminalising clients have to say about it?
"12. It is often claimed that the Swedish model has reduced the number of sex workers, and has reduced the number of clients. However, the number of clients was never correctly established prior to the law being passed. An estimate based on a 1996 survey of 2810 people, with 187 responses stating they had paid for sex at one time or another, equating to 12.7% of the male respondents. The Swedish government then made claims based on this figure that over four hundred thousand men, over 18 years of age, had, at some point in their lives, paid for sex (Kulick, 2005: 205).
13. In 2008, a similar estimate was completed, and 2,500 surveys were sent out, but only 45.5% of them were returned. Although the study showed that 8% of male respondents had paid for sex during their lifetime, and the Swedish government claimed this represented a decrease in the number of clients, the author of the report stated that because the survey was not representative as men, in particular young men were underrepresented, and the large number of non-returns, no valid conclusion could be drawn. The author also indicates that perhaps men who were clients were unwilling to admit being so because of the criminal act it had become (Dodilett & Östergren, 2011: 15-16).
14. Furthermore, the death rate (all ages) of men Sweden has been 1.02% per year over that period. The Swedish male population (all ages) increased from 4,369,717 in 1996 to 4,603,710, an increase of 5.35% (Statistics Sweden, 2014a, 2014b). This would drop the percentage of men who were clients by no more than 1.02% if none of those who turned 18 after 1996, and no men who migrated to Sweden, became clients. This would mean the percentage of men who had ever paid for sex would only reduce to 11.68%. As the estimate was a lifetime experience appeared to reduce from 12.7% to 8% it indicates that either those men who were clients in the 1996 survey refused to answer the question about purchasing sex, or were among the 54.5% of people who did not respond to the survey.
15. It is therefore not possible to extrapolate from a non-representative survey to the entire Swedish male population, and nor is it possible to state that the number of clients reduced. Despite the author cautioning that no valid conclusion could be drawn, the Swedish Government, and those trying to impose this law outside Sweden, did so. This is unethical."
Paragraphs 12 and 13 are the same as what HIV Ireland have said. Paragraphs 14 and 15 show that there is a problem with the idea that a prevalence rate could drop rapidly. Prevalence rates can only change when older people become too old to participate in the surveys because of the cut-off age, and only then if younger generations have different behaviour. This sets a limit on how quickly a prevalence rate can change.
This is what Charlotta Holmström and May-Len Skilbrei wrote in their 2017 paper The Swedish Sex Purchase Act: Where Does it Stand?
"The results presented in Kuosmanen’s publications are often cited as evidence for a reduction in sex purchases due to the Sex Purchase Act. However, Kuosmanen’s caution is supported by researchers in the Department of Criminology at Stockholm University, in a consultation response to the evaluation of the Act. Their response points out methodological problems in measuring the impact of legislation and the fact that such a rapid decline is not very likely if both studies are representative, as earlier experiences with buying sex are also included.
There is, however, other relevant information based on experiences of buying sex which may shed light on this development. The Swedish National Police Board report that interest in buying sex persists even though the act is criminalised. A qualitative study of men’s experiences of buying sex indicates that the law has had no deterrent effect on the informants, but that they now take more precautions to protect their identities. Some of the informants in the study say that criminalisation, rather than discouraging them, makes buying sex more exciting."
The 12.7% statistic does not show a reduction in prostitution in Sweden. They have ignored the incidence statistic (a rise from 1.3% to 1.8%), which is the one we should be using. They have also ignored the prevalence statistic for women who have sold sex at some time in their life: this also shows an increase, from 0.3% in 1996 to 1.1% in 2008. I have put a table of all the statistics here.
That's even before you get on to the problems it has as a statistic. Not only is it not the statistic we should be using, there are big problems with it, as outlined by HIV Ireland, NZPC and Holmström and Skilbrei.
We know that the Nordic model has not reduced demand in Ireland, either North or South. There have been reviews of the effectiveness of the Nordic model laws. There was one in Northern Ireland published in 2019 by Queen’s University Belfast. In the Republic there was an interim review published in 2020 and a full review published in 2025. Why would it work in Sweden but not in Ireland? It hasn't worked anywhere.
It is wrong for MP Sarah Champion to use this statistic in a debate, as she did in 2018. It is wrong for UK Feminista to tell Parliament it. It is wrong for Meghan Murphy to use it on her influential site. It doesn't help women and I wish they would stop doing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment