Is the EU about to discover social democracy?
We are all more or less influenced by the idea – all-pervasive in recent times – that enmities between nations are bad. They breed xenophobia and war. Yet national differences can often be productive: the longstanding tension that characterizes relations between France and England, for example.
If it wasn’t for the critical (some would say jaundiced) French take on all things Anglo-Saxon, we’d probably be much further down the road to Anglo-American-Zionist tyranny – you can call it the ‘new world order’ if you like - than we already are. And if French president Jacques Chirac wasn’t at heart a French nationalist, he would probably be more receptive to Anglo-American-Zionist economic orthodoxy than he is, with devastating consequences not simply for France but for Europe as a whole.
Most people probably aren’t aware of the fact, but Chirac has one outstanding quality: he is virtually alone among the current crop of European leaders in lacking illusions about the merits of neoliberalism. Back in 1999, for example, when Blair & Co. were touting Britain’s employment ‘miracle,’ he declared. ‘[I]f unemployment is lower in Britain than in France, it owes no thanks to the virtues of economic liberalism but because the English fiddle their figures.’ (SOURCE) Touché!
Chirac is not a socialist, but knowing that the French probably won’t be able to abide Sarkozy, his neoliberal heir-apparent, he seems to be doing his utmost to put forward a more realistic vision for France before he leaves office next year. Now this conservative seems to be looking at Scandinavian social democracy. A few months ago, in the wake of the nationwide riots, came the first indications that France was looking northwards for fresh ideas – looking specifically, to Denmark, which has high levels of social protection as well as a highly-flexible job market. (SOURCE) Yes, Chirac, it seems, has been converted to the Nordic model. And what’s even more stunning is that, according to this article, two other countries – Austria and the UK (although I find the latter difficult to believe and I haven’t seen any evidence of it) – are supporting the initiative:
Swedish model to cure Europe’s malaise?
The European Union is to showcase the Nordic model at its next summit in March, when the continent’s leaders will try to chart a way out of Europe’s economic slumber.
The UK, the champion of flexible Europe, and French president Jacques Chirac, an opponent of the “Anglo-Saxon” economic approach, believe Scandinavia combines the best of both worlds: relatively low unemployment, at 5.8 percent, and generous social provision.
Joakim Palme [the son of assassinated Swedish prime minister Olof Palme], the Swedish author of a paper on the Nordic model for the EU jobs summit last October, said Europe’s mighty but struggling economies were wise to look north.
He said: “I do not say the Nordic model should be copied. But if you are serious about combating poverty and inequality and want to combine that with growth and employment, it is difficult to discard the way the Scandinavians have organized the system of social protection.”
The decision to spotlight the Nordic model has been taken by Austria, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency.
The move comes as Sweden’s record in combining economic competitiveness with extensive welfare funded by high taxes attracts increasing interest both inside Europe and beyond.
The latest issue of Newsweek magazine carries a four-page focus on Sweden, praising the country for being one of the world’s most competitive economies yet also having extensive welfare provision.
Newsweek also highlighted Sweden’s “excellent education system, including some of the best universities in Europe (Lund, Uppsala).” (SOURCE)
As a long time apostle of the Nordic model, I am amazed that it took so long for the EU to start taking the model seriously. After all, the world’s ‘most middle-class countries, all with over 80 percent in the middle-income group, are the Netherlands and the Nordic countries - Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.’ (SOURCE) Even conventional economists concede that the Nordic countries seem to be doing everything right. As Augusto Lopez-Claros, Chief Economist of the World Economic Forum, remarks, 'In many ways the Nordics have entered virtuous circles where various factors reinforce each other to make them among the most competitive economies in the world, with world class institutions and some of the highest levels of per capita income in the world.' (SOURCE) It’s hard to understand why the EU didn’t decide long ago to look to the Nordic region for inspiration.
That said, it would be a disaster if the EU summit squanders this opportunity to highlight the advantages of the Nordic model by identifying that model exclusively with Sweden, as Newsweek seems to be doing and as Nicholas Watt of the Guardian does in a (rather nitpicky) piece on the upcoming summit.
There are several good reasons why this ought to be the age of Nordomania rather than Swedomania. First of all, the other Nordic countries – Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland - rival Sweden in most areas. There is not a major indicator of economic, social or political goods that does not find all these countries clustered towards the top, whether we are talking about conventional economic indexes like the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index (2004), which placed Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland at positions 1, 3, 5, 6 and 10 respectively, or indexes which focus on social features, such as life expectancy, or political indexes, such as press freedom.
Second, Sweden – which probably enjoyed the world’s highest standard of living as early as 1913 – is a hard act for anyone to follow. For that reason it might be productive to fix attention on a Nordic country which raised itself to a comparable level in a relatively short space of time. I am taking about the unsung miracle of the last fifty years – Finland. This little known country is now, in most every way except its official unemployment rate, which is about the same as that of France, fully Sweden’s equal. A 2003 survey demonstrated that its primary and secondary education system is superior. (Indeed, the Finnish system is now ranked the best in the world.) Furthermore, Finland, not Sweden, is today the world’s most middle class country.
BELOW: 'Finland's education system is the underpinning of the nation's success. Many countries are now studying the system, which emphasizes the role of teachers. Education, through all levels, is free, as is health care' - The Washington Post. (SOURCE)
Although most of the current wave of interest in the Nordic model is related to the fact that the Nordic countries are able to combine relatively low unemployment rates with relatively high social protection, Finland’s high official unemployment rate is not necessarily indicative of flaws within the model. As one commentator observes, ‘different methods of calculating unemployment may be partly responsible for the giving the impression that some countries have a greater problem of joblessness than others.’
A third and final reason why it is necessary to conceive of the Nordic model more broadly than Sweden is that the Swedish model is not what it was (and therefore not all that it could be). Since Olof Palme was assassinated in 1986, the model has suffered two periods of protracted neoliberal assault, probably the worst being inflicted by the conservative government headed by (Poppy Bush’s ally) Carl Bildt (1991-94). The problems the country faced during the mid-to late 1990s as a result of Bildt’s misguided policies were compounded by a budgetary crisis that led to a climate of public sector austerity little different from that imposed (albeit for purely ideological reasons) upon countries like Australia and Canada. This is one reason why three years ago 63yo Bernt Nilsson – whose case is mentioned by the Guardian writer as part of his attempt to tarnish the Swedish model - was sent home from hospital just a week after undergoing a bypass operation. What happened to Nilsson is not an indictment of the Swedish model, as Watt would lead English readers to believe, but a predictable result of the cutbacks of the 1990s.
Unlike Joakim Palme, I say yes, the Nordic model should be copied. As the best existing praxis no one in any country should be satisfied with any less. But it would be wrong to conflate that model with Sweden, a country that has not escaped the vicious anti-socialist reaction of the last twenty-five years unscathed. While Sweden thoroughly deserves to be called the ‘most successful society the world has ever known,’ as Polly Toynbee wrote recently, it is nonetheless important to take into account the fact that forces have already been unleashed which are slowly corroding the model from within.
Any attempt to divine the features of the Nordic model therefore requires not narrowing the focus of study too much. All the countries in the region have proven more effective in addressing particular problems than others. In the case of Sweden, what's more, it may be necessary for the EU to look as much into its past as its present.
BELOW: A beautiful picture from Finnish Lapland.
If it wasn’t for the critical (some would say jaundiced) French take on all things Anglo-Saxon, we’d probably be much further down the road to Anglo-American-Zionist tyranny – you can call it the ‘new world order’ if you like - than we already are. And if French president Jacques Chirac wasn’t at heart a French nationalist, he would probably be more receptive to Anglo-American-Zionist economic orthodoxy than he is, with devastating consequences not simply for France but for Europe as a whole.
Most people probably aren’t aware of the fact, but Chirac has one outstanding quality: he is virtually alone among the current crop of European leaders in lacking illusions about the merits of neoliberalism. Back in 1999, for example, when Blair & Co. were touting Britain’s employment ‘miracle,’ he declared. ‘[I]f unemployment is lower in Britain than in France, it owes no thanks to the virtues of economic liberalism but because the English fiddle their figures.’ (SOURCE) Touché!
Chirac is not a socialist, but knowing that the French probably won’t be able to abide Sarkozy, his neoliberal heir-apparent, he seems to be doing his utmost to put forward a more realistic vision for France before he leaves office next year. Now this conservative seems to be looking at Scandinavian social democracy. A few months ago, in the wake of the nationwide riots, came the first indications that France was looking northwards for fresh ideas – looking specifically, to Denmark, which has high levels of social protection as well as a highly-flexible job market. (SOURCE) Yes, Chirac, it seems, has been converted to the Nordic model. And what’s even more stunning is that, according to this article, two other countries – Austria and the UK (although I find the latter difficult to believe and I haven’t seen any evidence of it) – are supporting the initiative:
Swedish model to cure Europe’s malaise?
The European Union is to showcase the Nordic model at its next summit in March, when the continent’s leaders will try to chart a way out of Europe’s economic slumber.
The UK, the champion of flexible Europe, and French president Jacques Chirac, an opponent of the “Anglo-Saxon” economic approach, believe Scandinavia combines the best of both worlds: relatively low unemployment, at 5.8 percent, and generous social provision.
Joakim Palme [the son of assassinated Swedish prime minister Olof Palme], the Swedish author of a paper on the Nordic model for the EU jobs summit last October, said Europe’s mighty but struggling economies were wise to look north.
He said: “I do not say the Nordic model should be copied. But if you are serious about combating poverty and inequality and want to combine that with growth and employment, it is difficult to discard the way the Scandinavians have organized the system of social protection.”
The decision to spotlight the Nordic model has been taken by Austria, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency.
The move comes as Sweden’s record in combining economic competitiveness with extensive welfare funded by high taxes attracts increasing interest both inside Europe and beyond.
The latest issue of Newsweek magazine carries a four-page focus on Sweden, praising the country for being one of the world’s most competitive economies yet also having extensive welfare provision.
Newsweek also highlighted Sweden’s “excellent education system, including some of the best universities in Europe (Lund, Uppsala).” (SOURCE)
As a long time apostle of the Nordic model, I am amazed that it took so long for the EU to start taking the model seriously. After all, the world’s ‘most middle-class countries, all with over 80 percent in the middle-income group, are the Netherlands and the Nordic countries - Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.’ (SOURCE) Even conventional economists concede that the Nordic countries seem to be doing everything right. As Augusto Lopez-Claros, Chief Economist of the World Economic Forum, remarks, 'In many ways the Nordics have entered virtuous circles where various factors reinforce each other to make them among the most competitive economies in the world, with world class institutions and some of the highest levels of per capita income in the world.' (SOURCE) It’s hard to understand why the EU didn’t decide long ago to look to the Nordic region for inspiration.
That said, it would be a disaster if the EU summit squanders this opportunity to highlight the advantages of the Nordic model by identifying that model exclusively with Sweden, as Newsweek seems to be doing and as Nicholas Watt of the Guardian does in a (rather nitpicky) piece on the upcoming summit.
There are several good reasons why this ought to be the age of Nordomania rather than Swedomania. First of all, the other Nordic countries – Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland - rival Sweden in most areas. There is not a major indicator of economic, social or political goods that does not find all these countries clustered towards the top, whether we are talking about conventional economic indexes like the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index (2004), which placed Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland at positions 1, 3, 5, 6 and 10 respectively, or indexes which focus on social features, such as life expectancy, or political indexes, such as press freedom.
Second, Sweden – which probably enjoyed the world’s highest standard of living as early as 1913 – is a hard act for anyone to follow. For that reason it might be productive to fix attention on a Nordic country which raised itself to a comparable level in a relatively short space of time. I am taking about the unsung miracle of the last fifty years – Finland. This little known country is now, in most every way except its official unemployment rate, which is about the same as that of France, fully Sweden’s equal. A 2003 survey demonstrated that its primary and secondary education system is superior. (Indeed, the Finnish system is now ranked the best in the world.) Furthermore, Finland, not Sweden, is today the world’s most middle class country.
BELOW: 'Finland's education system is the underpinning of the nation's success. Many countries are now studying the system, which emphasizes the role of teachers. Education, through all levels, is free, as is health care' - The Washington Post. (SOURCE)
Although most of the current wave of interest in the Nordic model is related to the fact that the Nordic countries are able to combine relatively low unemployment rates with relatively high social protection, Finland’s high official unemployment rate is not necessarily indicative of flaws within the model. As one commentator observes, ‘different methods of calculating unemployment may be partly responsible for the giving the impression that some countries have a greater problem of joblessness than others.’
A third and final reason why it is necessary to conceive of the Nordic model more broadly than Sweden is that the Swedish model is not what it was (and therefore not all that it could be). Since Olof Palme was assassinated in 1986, the model has suffered two periods of protracted neoliberal assault, probably the worst being inflicted by the conservative government headed by (Poppy Bush’s ally) Carl Bildt (1991-94). The problems the country faced during the mid-to late 1990s as a result of Bildt’s misguided policies were compounded by a budgetary crisis that led to a climate of public sector austerity little different from that imposed (albeit for purely ideological reasons) upon countries like Australia and Canada. This is one reason why three years ago 63yo Bernt Nilsson – whose case is mentioned by the Guardian writer as part of his attempt to tarnish the Swedish model - was sent home from hospital just a week after undergoing a bypass operation. What happened to Nilsson is not an indictment of the Swedish model, as Watt would lead English readers to believe, but a predictable result of the cutbacks of the 1990s.
Unlike Joakim Palme, I say yes, the Nordic model should be copied. As the best existing praxis no one in any country should be satisfied with any less. But it would be wrong to conflate that model with Sweden, a country that has not escaped the vicious anti-socialist reaction of the last twenty-five years unscathed. While Sweden thoroughly deserves to be called the ‘most successful society the world has ever known,’ as Polly Toynbee wrote recently, it is nonetheless important to take into account the fact that forces have already been unleashed which are slowly corroding the model from within.
Any attempt to divine the features of the Nordic model therefore requires not narrowing the focus of study too much. All the countries in the region have proven more effective in addressing particular problems than others. In the case of Sweden, what's more, it may be necessary for the EU to look as much into its past as its present.
BELOW: A beautiful picture from Finnish Lapland.
