The Conomist The Nordic countries - The next supermodel

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,251
4,764
136
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...de&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

Politicians from both right and left could learn from the Nordic countries

SMALLISH countries are often in the vanguard when it comes to reforming government. In the 1980s Britain was out in the lead, thanks to Thatcherism and privatisation. Tiny Singapore has long been a role model for many reformers. Now the Nordic countries are likely to assume a similar role.

That is partly because the four main Nordics—Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland—are doing rather well. If you had to be reborn anywhere in the world as a person with average talents and income, you would want to be a Viking. The Nordics cluster at the top of league tables of everything from economic competitiveness to social health to happiness. They have avoided both southern Europe’s economic sclerosis and America’s extreme inequality. Development theorists have taken to calling successful modernisation “getting to Denmark”. Meanwhile a region that was once synonymous with do-it-yourself furniture and Abba has even become a cultural haven, home to “The Killing”, Noma and “Angry Birds”.
In this section

As our special report this week explains, some of this is down to lucky timing: the Nordics cleverly managed to have their debt crisis in the 1990s. But the second reason why the Nordic model is in vogue is more interesting. To politicians around the world—especially in the debt-ridden West—they offer a blueprint of how to reform the public sector, making the state far more efficient and responsive.

From Pippi Longstocking to private schools

The idea of lean Nordic government will come as a shock both to French leftists who dream of socialist Scandinavia and to American conservatives who fear that Barack Obama is bent on “Swedenisation”. They are out of date. In the 1970s and 1980s the Nordics were indeed tax-and-spend countries. Sweden’s public spending reached 67% of GDP in 1993. Astrid Lindgren, the inventor of Pippi Longstocking, was forced to pay more than 100% of her income in taxes. But tax-and-spend did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth-richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th in 1993.

Since then the Nordics have changed course—mainly to the right. Government’s share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18 percentage points, is lower than France’s and could soon be lower than Britain’s. Taxes have been cut: the corporate rate is 22%, far lower than America’s. The Nordics have focused on balancing the books. While Mr Obama and Congress dither over entitlement reform, Sweden has reformed its pension system (see Free exchange). Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP; America’s is 7%.

On public services the Nordics have been similarly pragmatic. So long as public services work, they do not mind who provides them. Denmark and Norway allow private firms to run public hospitals. Sweden has a universal system of school vouchers, with private for-profit schools competing with public schools. Denmark also has vouchers—but ones that you can top up. When it comes to choice, Milton Friedman would be more at home in Stockholm than in Washington, DC.

All Western politicians claim to promote transparency and technology. The Nordics can do so with more justification than most. The performance of all schools and hospitals is measured. Governments are forced to operate in the harsh light of day: Sweden gives everyone access to official records. Politicians are vilified if they get off their bicycles and into official limousines. The home of Skype and Spotify is also a leader in e-government: you can pay your taxes with an SMS message.

This may sound like enhanced Thatcherism, but the Nordics also offer something for the progressive left by proving that it is possible to combine competitive capitalism with a large state: they employ 30% of their workforce in the public sector, compared with an OECD average of 15%. They are stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies: Sweden let Saab go bankrupt and Volvo is now owned by China’s Geeley. But they also focus on the long term—most obviously through Norway’s $600 billion sovereign-wealth fund—and they look for ways to temper capitalism’s harsher effects. Denmark, for instance, has a system of “flexicurity” that makes it easier for employers to sack people but provides support and training for the unemployed, and Finland organises venture-capital networks.

The sour part of the smorgasbord

The new Nordic model is not perfect. Public spending as a proportion of GDP in these countries is still higher than this newspaper would like, or indeed than will be sustainable. Their levels of taxation still encourage entrepreneurs to move abroad: London is full of clever young Swedes. Too many people—especially immigrants—live off benefits. The pressures that have forced their governments to cut spending, such as growing global competition, will force more change. The Nordics are bloated compared with Singapore, and they have not focused enough on means-testing benefits.

All the same, ever more countries should look to the Nordics. Western countries will hit the limits of big government, as Sweden did. When Angela Merkel worries that the European Union has 7% of the world’s population but half of its social spending, the Nordics are part of the answer. They also show that EU countries can be genuine economic successes. And as the Asians introduce welfare states they too will look to the Nordics: Norway is a particular focus of the Chinese.

The main lesson to learn from the Nordics is not ideological but practical. The state is popular not because it is big but because it works. A Swede pays tax more willingly than a Californian because he gets decent schools and free health care. The Nordics have pushed far-reaching reforms past unions and business lobbies. The proof is there. You can inject market mechanisms into the welfare state to sharpen its performance. You can put entitlement programmes on sound foundations to avoid beggaring future generations. But you need to be willing to root out corruption and vested interests. And you must be ready to abandon tired orthodoxies of the left and right and forage for good ideas across the political spectrum. The world will be studying the Nordic model for years to come.

I think this article explains a lot of the problems when we discuss welfare states. I can more readily understand the reluctance to pay taxes to a public sector that is inefficient. Since I only have experience with the danish public sector, I know how well functions in most cases and think it's a good thing to have. But I've assumed that all public sectors were the same, and that's clearly not the case.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
I'm no expert on economics, but these kinds of articles strike me as a bit foolish.

Comparing countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway which are all uniformly small, with practically monolithic ethnic makeups to countries like the U.S, U.K, France etc which are huge, with very diverse ethnic makeups is futile.

What works in Sweden and Denmark, would not work in the U.S. The U.S would become completely bankrupt if it ever implemented the kinds of policies and social benefits seen in the Nordic countries.

The main reason why those economic policies are successful in the Nordic countries, is due to their small populations and high GDP per capita..
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
We are not a homogeneous nation in which the majority is composed of mainly one ethnic/racial group. Might as well try to compare us with Japan while the author is at it.
 
Last edited:

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
I'm no expert on economics, but these kinds of articles strike me as a bit foolish.

Comparing countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway which are all uniformly small, with practically monolithic ethnic makeups to countries like the U.S, U.K, France etc which are huge, with very diverse ethnic makeups is futile.

What works in Sweden and Denmark, would not work in the U.S. The U.S would become completely bankrupt if it ever implemented the kinds of policies and social benefits seen in the Nordic countries.

The main reason why those economic policies are successful in the Nordic countries, is due to their small populations and high GDP per capita..




Agreed. Just look at the Atlanta thread with the tazed woman that wouldn't "back it up." That's the kind of shit we deal with here in America. :|
 

PingviN

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2009
1,848
13
81
I'm no expert on economics, but these kinds of articles strike me as a bit foolish.

Comparing countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway which are all uniformly small, with practically monolithic ethnic makeups to countries like the U.S, U.K, France etc which are huge, with very diverse ethnic makeups is futile.

What works in Sweden and Denmark, would not work in the U.S. The U.S would become completely bankrupt if it ever implemented the kinds of policies and social benefits seen in the Nordic countries.

The main reason why those economic policies are successful in the Nordic countries, is due to their small populations and high GDP per capita..

We've been social democrats for the past 100 years and as a result, solidarity is the backbone of the Nordic societies. Scandinavian policies wouldn't work in the States because Americans are, by tradition, individualistic. Then there is the clusterfuck that is the current political situation in the States which I guess every Swede, Dane and Norwegian just shakes their heads at.

Still, comparing a nation consisting of 10 million to one of 315 million doesn't work. Still though, certain aspects (such as transparency and pragmatism) shouldn't be impossible to work towards in the States.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
The main reason why those economic policies are successful in the Nordic countries, is due to their small populations and high GDP per capita..

I highly recommend secession, then we too may be comprised of smaller populations.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Could you compare a Nordic country with a single state in the US?

That's a change in the intent of your op and its subject matter. Furthermore in what way are you going to compare a US state to Nordic nations?

Additionally the over premise of the reasons why the original article does not accurately apply to the US is precisely because what works in one US state won't necessarily work in other states. You can't just say "Well it worked for Vermont (where for example 94%+ of the population is white, they don't have border issues, and unemployment is relativity low) so it will work for California, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, etc. This isn't even taking into account governmental issues at a federal level which effect some US states differently for various reasons.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
It's easy to have large social safety nets when oil is $100/barrel and you have a lot of it. E.g. Norway. I'm not sure how the others fare with regard to oil, though.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
The model would work fine if we were a Republic where Federal government had very limited reach. That however, will never happpen.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Its nothing to do with size. Its about mindset and empathy.

The US simply aint ready for it. The government is too corrupt, people too egocentric and too scared if someone else gets something they didnt.

It's easy to have large social safety nets when oil is $100/barrel and you have a lot of it. E.g. Norway. I'm not sure how the others fare with regard to oil, though.

Lame excuse yet again.

I doubt Sweden and Finland got any oil of importance. And in Denmark the oil consist of 22B DKK of the 686B DKK budget in 2011.

I am sure the US earns even more this way. Unless the US companies just cheat in tax.
 
Last edited:

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
Its nothing to do with size. Its about mindset and empathy.

The US simply aint ready for it. The government is too corrupt, people too egocentric and too scared if someone else gets something they didnt.
Egocentric; I prefer the verbiage above "individualistic". Good luck selling to the average American the Denmark tax system. How do you like your $60,000 VW Golf?

Anyway, I don't know if these countries are full to the hilt of poorly educated lower classes, but the US sure it. It is inconceivable that the economy in the US in general could mimic them. The demographics are not comparable.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Egocentric; I prefer the verbiage above "individualistic". Good luck selling to the average American the Denmark tax system. How do you like your $60,000 VW Golf?

Anyway, I don't know if these countries are full to the hilt of poorly educated lower classes, but the US sure it. It is inconceivable that the economy in the US in general could mimic them. The demographics are not comparable.

When you restrict education...
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,251
4,764
136
Size doesn't matter, as you could apply the model on state level, just as we could say EU all have welfare states even though they are not the same. I'm pretty sure US has more natural resources than the Nordic countries (except Norway).
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,606
4,055
136
My #1 guess why it wouldnt work in the US has to do with multi-culturalism. People of the same ethnic race are more willing to get along and help each other. Its the sad but true part of human nature.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
My #1 guess why it wouldnt work in the US has to do with multi-culturalism. People of the same ethnic race are more willing to get along and help each other. Its the sad but true part of human nature.

Its not just a racial thing.

What does a black single mother in the hood have in common with say an upper middle-class white person?
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,606
4,055
136
Its not just a racial thing.

What does a black single mother in the hood have in common with say an upper middle-class white person?

I agree there is more than just racial things, but i think that would be the top of the list.

But on a side note. If you are arguing its not just racial why do you use an example that is racial with a black woman and white woman? :p
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
So youre saying we should stop immigration to be like them? :whiste:

We have a ton of oil as well..but lack the immigration stuff currently :p
nope, just that it's easier to provide a vast social safety net when you've got more natural resources per capita and don't have an influx of immigrants (legal and otherwise) from third world countries?
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
don't they also have a shitton of oil and low immigration rates?
Only Norway has oil.

Immigrant population by percentage:
Switzerland: 22.89
Australia: 19.93
Canada: 18.76
United States: 12.82
Germany 12.31
Sweden: 12.3
Netherlands: 10.05
Norway: 7.37
Denmark 7.16

Everyone thinks their country has the most immigrants, but US immigration rates are pretty standard (although other countries prefer LEGAL immigration instead of border hopping).
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Size doesn't matter, as you could apply the model on state level, just as we could say EU all have welfare states even though they are not the same. I'm pretty sure US has more natural resources than the Nordic countries (except Norway).

Yes size matters. If these models work regardless of size why doesnt the rest of Europe follow their lead?

Dont get me wrong. It works for them. Clearly there are things we can learn from them. But I have little doubt if we copied them 100% it would fail in this country.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,251
4,764
136
Yes size matters. If these models work regardless of size why doesnt the rest of Europe follow their lead?

Dont get me wrong. It works for them. Clearly there are things we can learn from them. But I have little doubt if we copied them 100% it would fail in this country.

As was stated in the article these systems are not perfect and still needs optimizations. As I think all societies do. As the world change, so must the political systems. You can't just copy a system, as each country has different history, culture etc. But hopefully we can learn from each other and adapt the polices that will work in your country. It takes political leadership to do so, and that has been severely lacking in southern Europe. People are often very reluctant to changes especially if it means loss of welfare or higher taxes. Sometimes you just have to accept that you can't continue as you have always been doing, and you need to make reforms so that there's balance in the economy and the welfare.