Many left-liberals have a real thing about the social democracies of Scandinavia. As University of Arizona sociologist Lane Kenworthy has put it, “Over the course of the next half century, the array of social programs offered by the federal government of the United States will increasingly come to resemble the ones offered by [the Nordic welfare states].” And he might be right, if Democrats have their way. No sooner the arrival of universal healthcare did Democrats move into their next project: universal preschool. And next perhaps a universal basic income. (Hey, where is the VAT to pay for all this stuff?) There are fans in the media, too. Again, here is New York Times reporter Neil Irwin on what lessons America can learn from Scandinavia’s high labor force participation rates  in creating a pro-work safety net:
In short, more people may work when countries offer public services that directly make working easier, such as subsidized care for children and the old; generous sick leave policies; and cheap and accessible transportation. If the goal is to get more people working, what’s important about a social welfare plan may be more about what the money is spent on than how much is spent. If correct, it could have broad implications for how the United States might better use its social safety net to encourage Americans to work. In particular, it could mean that more direct aid to the working poor could help coax Americans into the labor force more effectively than the tax credits that have been a mainstay for compromise between Republicans and Democrats for the last generation.
AEI’s Mike Strain, quoted in the Irwin piece, has a response here. So too does AEI’s Stan Veuger. Let me pull out a few of their insights. First, Strain:
I’m quoted in an article in the New York Times on the paper, and as the article reports I do think that we can learn some things from Scandinavia — better transportation, better public education — and I oppose expanding the government’s role in child care (we have enough middle-class entitlements, thank you very much). … I would make two other points as well. Americans might be willing to fork over more of their hard-earned cash to the government if they had more confidence that the government would spend the money in a productive way. … And, as I have written, very high marginal income tax rates would likely be very damaging to the long-term future of the United States. Why would a young person want to be a surgeon or an entrepreneur if the government will take seventy cents of her top dollars of income? Like Scandinavian culture, the longer-term reactions to high top rates — skill acquisition, occupational choice, general attitudes about work — are much harder to measure. And it is fine for economists to focus on what they can measure when writing their papers. But it is not fine for the public debate to assume that these effects are zero just because economists can’t measure them.
And Veuger:
But might policy and politics be downstream from culture? Well, that certainly appears to be the case once we look at Scandinavian culture. Scandinavians trust their fellow citizens. They think poor people have typically been unlucky instead of lazy. They vote actively and participate in civil society. They respect the rule of law, and they donate to charity. Professor Kleven recognizes all of these things, and ultimately chooses not to guess what causes what. Yet for the ambitions of American progressives, that distinction matters very much. If all of these things are so precisely because the Scandinavian countries are small and homogeneous and have been that way for quite some time, then there is not much to be learned from this Scandinavian business. The Scandinavians themselves seem quite confident that they know the answer: culture matters and that their countries are small and homogeneous matters. They are the most Euroskeptic peoples of the continent. Norway is not a member of the European Union, Sweden joined only recently, and none of the three adopted the eurozone’s common currency. They seem to like their small, homogeneous countries just fine. And perhaps that’s what Scandinavia ultimately teaches us: the value of subsidiarity, not of subsidies.
Other economists wonder if Nordic-style capitalism is as conducive to innovation. Certainly they file fewer patents and generate fewer superrich entrepreneurs. (Recall Strain’s remarks on taxes.) As economists Daron Acemoglu, James Robinson, and Thierry Verdier explain in their paper “Can’t We All Be More Like Scandinavians?”: “We cannot all be like the Scandinavians, because Scandinavian capitalism depends in part on the knowledge spillovers created by the more cutthroat American capitalism. … Some countries will opt for a type of cutthroat capitalism that generates greater inequality and more innovation and will become the technology leaders, while others will free-ride on the cutthroat incentives of the leaders and choose a more cuddly form of capitalism.”
Published in General
This sentiment, while true, also provides fodder to the American left’s argument.
As soon as somebody, anywhere, points out that Scandanavian countries have better-functioning public sectors because their cultures have greater solidarity and cohesion, that’s the cue for an American liberal to say: “See? If only you knuckle-draggers would get in line with us, we could make high-speed rail from NYC to LA cheaper and faster than flying!”
Of course, that important descriptor “small” seems to fly over many lefty’s heads.
The Left wants to make America monolingual and monoethnic? ;-)
But seriously…
I disagree.
The lesson to be learned is that these sorts of issues are best left to governments which represent populations of similar size and similar homogeneity as those in the Scandinavian countries.
In other words, the States:
.
.
.
.
.
Furthermore, Norway and Iceland aren’t even members of the European Union!
If those countries can govern themselves successfully without the guiding hand of Brussels, why does the Left think States of similar size are stygian dystopias without the guiding hand of Washington D.C.?
Hmm, maybe I should have read the entire quote before rebutting…
;-)
It doesn’t matter that our backgrounds may be so splintered, we can still transform ourselves into one unified people, today. All we need is love.
Although personally, I would much rather prefer to come together as one nation under a groove.
As a Scandinavian-American, I think the culture in those countries is a huge part of their functioning. I live in Minnesota which has a large population of Scandinavian-Americans, and is closer in terms of taxes and services to the nordic countries our ancestors came from. The fact of the matter is that the characteristics mentioned in the post are also present here in the north star state. It is the only reason we don’t have the budget issues of California, given the way our left leaning voters empower the folks in St. Paul to spend. We always rank in the top 10 states in terms of income tax, but our unemployment numbers are back down to 2001 levels. We have a large population of basically good folks that work hard and put their best into the community. That and the weather keeps the rif-raf out, it can literally kill you if you don’t keep your wits about you.
The distance between Los Angeles and New York City is about 4,082 kms.
The longest continuous high-speed rail route in Europe, between London and Marseilles, is about 1,112 kms.
Japan’s high-speed rail network is about 1,775 kms long.
China’s longest high-speed rail route is about 3,342 kms long.