Talk:Nordic model/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion

The article is one that needs to exist, as what other online information available on the topic is scant and skewed either one way or the other. I would love to learn more of the topic, but am a poor researcher, hence my reliance on things like Wiki and other online resources. While Wiki can't claim the authority of say Merriam's or Roget's, I do find it more expansive and useful. Even this article, poor as it is, was better than other materials I found on the topic. This article does need balancing, spell- and grammar-checking, even I can see that, lol. But it does exist, and it does give enough that it should stay, with the warnings and the option for completion and editing. Obviously there are enough folks interested in it to keep it from becoming a wholly unsuitable article. Perhaps, most likely, someone soon with enough knowledge and experience on the topic will have the time and inclination to work on it. 0²= infinity --Smokr (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

3 of the 4 links at the bottom go to the Mises Institute, a heavily libertarian think tank. Can someone please get some citations and expand the related articles and external sources section? Like Vergad said, this is already highly biased. --Autonomist (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy biased against the Nordic model!!! Verged 07:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What an earth has happened to this article???? Several months ago it was a balanced, correct view on the Nordic model, now it reads like from somebody who has no idea of the benefits that the model has brought and has a certain grudge against the idea it has lead to anything good. I suspect the changes have some relation to the Mises Institute links that have appeared.

Biased censorship!!! Hobbyman 20:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it needed some balancing links to pro-Nordic Model professional research sources, but a certain reader has deleted sections that they disagreed with, and this type of censorship is in no-ones interest. Last time I read this it mentioned High Taxes (unarguably true), the migration of high net-worth society members such as Ingvar Kamprad and Mikkel Kessler for tax reasons (also true), and the links to the Mises have gone. Maybe the Mises articles present biased interpretation to some, but their facts are normally accurate, and the three articles were actually even written by a Danish economics professor.

I suspect this is either a copyvio or original research. The original editor has only made this one contribution. RedWolf 16:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a much better page following re-editing. Funny that someone had taken the "high taxes" bit out, and the entire section on threats to the nordic model. I have amended the section saying "a few Danes and Swedes", to say "some Danes and Swedes". 50,000 (out of a population of 5 mil) Danes live in London alone, while it is estimated only 13,000 British citizens (out of 60 mil, live in Denmark). Dunwidda (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor Article ConXII 25 June 2008

I was happy to see this article on the Nordic Model, however, I'm afraid it's turned into just another example of why Wikipedia is not always a trustworthy source for information. The grammar on the page is poor and the author's bias against the Nordic model is clear as is his/her preference to, as has been said, Libertarian alternatives.

Several factual errors also present, including:

"The Nordic countries have been leaders in privatisation" <- Untrue. In the 1980's and 90's the Nordic model was largely able to survive economic turbulence without witnessing the same deregulation that occured in the UK. The Nordic countries to this day maintain strong public sectors, particularly when compared to, for example, Britain where everything from public transport and care for the elderly to the maintenance of roads has been heavily outsourced and in some cases monopolised by private companies. To illustrate, public transport in Sweden remains government owned whether it be by the individual Län (who hold jurisdiction over the various Lokal Trafik in operation throughout Swedish Counties e.g. Skåne Trafik or Hallands Trafik) or by the central government as in the case of the SJ state railways. It is the fact that privatisation of state-held assets has occurred less in the Nordic countries than elsewhere that is key to the distinction of the Nordic Model to my mind.

Reading through the rest of the article, the quality is strkingly subpar. The text is poorly written and becomes bogged down far too often in the rigmarole of percentages. Claims go unreferenced or are not elaborated upon such as "Environment: The Nordic countries, and specially Sweden, claim to be defending these concepts in the international arena."

I am hopeful that the poor quality of this article will be corrected by someone with greater knowledge of the Nordic model and access to appropriate references..

Nordic countries are on the top of Europe in terms of government outsourcing, just look at the referenced papers. And by the way, as far as I know, 100% of road maintenance is outsourced in Nordics and majority of transport sector is privately owned. And saying that Britain is heavily outsourced is not true in sectors, since Britain is behind Nordic countries in terms of privatizing health care and education.Turkuun (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where you live but as a citizen of Britain I can say that it'd be pretty difficult for a nation to be ahead of us in outsourcing. For example, the majority of Rail Transport in Sweden remains government owned, as another of your references states, whereas in Britain by far the majority is monopolised by Private enterprise. As for Health care etc. what you say contradicts everything I have learned about Sweden from my numerous visits there, from my own reading and from Swedes themselves and I unfortunately don't have the time to read the 167 page document in your references. However, if you yourself are a native of the Nordic countries you probably know better the intricacies of the government than I do. Still, I do not understand why then it seems that Swedes and Finns on here have complained about your edits as misrepresenting their nations.

I maintain that this article is bias though, especially in its tone and entire handling of its subject matter. But this has already been listed by other users above me so I feel no need to repeat what they have said.

ConXII

Room for improvement

I agree Saluton. Too many facts in this article lack citations. The bulk of the article seems to have a blatant skewness towards the model, again, with no sources cited. It is clear this article is skewed just by conducting a simple word count on the pro and con arguments of the Welfare Benefits section, the pro argument consists of 168 words to the mere 55 words of the con. Indecisive monk (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My feeling reading this, is that to improve the article and its neutrality, there needs to be less reliance on just two sources. Neither source is written from a neutral standpoint - they analyse the nordic model from a neoliberal perspective, judging it against neoliberal norms. This is reflected by in the article by POV statements, some of which even have normative content. eg. "The public sector's low productivity growth has been compensated by Europe's pioneering privatization and outsourcing programs". More sources and a major cleanup are needed in order to balance out the article. Saluton (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While there are serious issues with the article, comparing word-counts is not a measure of bias. The article fluctuates between being heavily pro or heavily con the subject of the article, and the text is inconsistent as a result. Let's just get more references and monitor the article for vandalism. Carewolf (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes some sense, generous welfare state and capitalism not mutually exclusive

As a Norwegian who have lived abroad in the US and Netherlands, so I have some places to compare I would say that it is possible to have low regulation on many things and friendly business environment, while at the same time have generous welfare states. I found that living in the US there was often my impression that there were more rules and regulations. Just compare e.g. a Norwegian taxform with an American one. The Norwegian one is a lot simpler. Starting business is a fairly simple operation. I've done it so I know. Nordic countries have had a free market for electric power much longer than in the US (in fact I don't think they have one yet).

True labor regulations are stricter and there are more restrictions on business for things like opening hours, employing people etc. But it is still nothing compared to the kind convoluted mazes of rules and regulations you often find in say South American countries or Southern Europe which makes people chose to run businesses illegally, because cost of compliance is too high. I am not just making this up. Several indices published on ease of doing business, protection of property rights etch gives Nordic countries high listings. High taxes in and by themselves does not make it difficult to run business (taxes on companies are quite low anyway).

But one of the main differences between Nordic countries and say Anglosaxon ones like Britain and the US, is the lack of solidarity in the latter countries. Managers have no solidarity with workers and workers have no solidarity with the company. In Nordic countries everyone tries to work together, while it seems like that in e.g. Britain, US, Ireland etc workers and managers are supposed to be enemies and unions are supposed to come with unreasonable demands. Norwegian ship makers taking over shipyards in Britain tried to turn them around and the managers called in everybody including the workers to sit down and discuss how to turn things around. British unions did not understand the point and initially boycotted the whole thing. I have heard similar experiences from friends and family working abroad. It is not to pick on Britain or the US, but to point out that it is more than just politics but also a difference in philosophy and values.

Nordics will never be risk takers and entrepreneurs on the same scale as say as Americans and British. It is not part of the culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.110.114 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes no sense

This article makes no sense at all. The nordic model is about a highly regulated financial market, and symbolizes a welfare model.

Norway is the best example. Sadly, the nordic model in Sweden has been nearly destroyed by right-wing parties. Island went bancrupt in the financial crisis because of extremely liberal economical politics. Therefore several people have started talking about the Norwegian model, instead of the nordic model.

As as 11/Apr/2010, Norway is mentioned once in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.2.97 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is bullocks. The nordic model has nothing to do with high privatization and marked based thinking. It's all about the opposite. Keynes is also a key figure here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bthbt (talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you want to get technical; the nordic model is not used in the nordic countries. There is no common model the nordic countries are following for their welfare and economic policies. There is however an overlap in policies and success-stories that other countries might use as a model, which is referred to as the "Nordic Model". Privatization is a character of the Danish economic policies, and has also been used in Sweden. Both countries that have been pointed at as role-models. No one is pointing out Norway because they oil-income makes it hard to compare against. Iceland likewise have been too small and unique to use as a role-model. Carewolf (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

privatized pension system?

article on swedish pension system, Social_Security_(Sweden) says that since 2001, their system is a 18.5% income tax , of which 16% is given for current payments (PAYGO) and only the remaining 2.5% goes to individual retirement accounts, and there are 5 government owned funds that manage money for future retirees. So, 86,5% is classic government PAYGO system. I'll put some tag for this, after figuring out which is appropriate.. Aryah (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Faulty: Cherry-picking the data to advance a POV

The article draws comparisons to the UK which I've highlighted in bold text above, and an article contributor --146.87.0.77, in the next topic on this Discussion page-- draws comparisons to the relative 'failure' of what he/she calls the "neoliberal" model or "neoliberal" nations... but such comparisons cherry-pick only the strongest (oil-rich) welfare-states. i.e. Some contributors to this article are cherry picking" the data (another fallacy of logic) when they compare only the 2, 3, or 5 nations which suit their POV:

To compare the superior GDP/growth/etc of a Nordic PETROL-STATE to "neoliberal" UK/USA, and then dismissing neoliberalism, is as logically-flawed as comparing the UK/USA to other welfare-statist/anti-neoliberal nations such as the low GDP of Argentina, and then saying, “See, performance of The Neoloberal Model is better than welfare-statism, because UK/USA beats Argentina's GDP (or GDP-growth, etc)”. Or we can make a similar fallacy by comparing the petrol-state of Saudi Arabia or UAE to the UK then stating, “See, the non-democratic and semi-theocratic Muslim Model "performs" by growing wealthy faster than the UK!!!!!1!1!!11!!" (whilst ignoring that in every non-oil-producing Muslim nation, the GDP is lower, and some common law nations are not as growing as wealthy as the UK...due to non-Saudi and non-UK factors, respectively). Yes I'm going to do this to death...this time not a petrol-state example: Should we compare the ultra-wealthy tax haven of Singapore to the world, then state, "See, Singapore's free-trade policies (which is what right-wingers seem intent to associate with the Nordic region's successes, as they (ab)use this article) and Singapore's welfare-state policies (which is what leftists seem intent to associate with the Nordic region's successes, as they also (ab)use this article) are helping Singapore's superior ”performance”...but hey, we won't even mention the economic “performance” benefits due to being a tax haven? Why would you ignore that SG is a tax-haven --or ignore that the Nordics have huge oil-wealth, per capita-- unless you're trying to focus on advancing a positive POV about welfare-states & someone else is trying to focus on advancing a positive POV about the free market? This paragraph sums up why I don't take advice from political economy students like 146.87.0.77 claims to be, esp those “students” who use fallacious logic or fail to cite any sources to prove even one of the things that they've claimed --i.e. long on opinions and short on facts/logic ;-) -- nor proving that they're even an actual PhD student of economics; I tend to judge people by the substance (logical+empirical substantiation) of what they claim, not what titles they (supposedly) have. Should we compare Venezuela favorably against other LatAm nations and then claim that --despite every other Bolivarian/socialist nation, allied with Chavez, are in the 5 poorest of LatAm as they don't have oil-money-- we should cherry-pick Venezueala and conclude that "Bolivarianism is working great" or “Venezeuela's success is creditable to the Bolivarian Model not its crude oil (despite that every Bolivarian-Modeled nation which is a NON-oil state is among LatAm's poorest)? ;-)” Look at the GINI of Panama then compare to nearby Guatemala: both poor, one with high GINI the other with low...similar culture. Am I cherry-picking that CentAm example? Nope... Look at low-GINI Balkans (poor) versus low-GINI Nordics (wealthy). High-GINI USA & low-GINI Europe: 2 major First World continents. Faltering Japan vs. nearby growing ANZ (all have nearly the same GINI). AND WORLDWIDE, look at WP's lists of the nations with highest GDP/PPP/GDP-growth, per-capita, and you'll find plenty with high, low, and moderare GINI in the top 10 or 20: whether going by nations on the same continent or of the same culture, or if we go worldwide, there's not even a solid correlation of wealth to GINI, and causality would be even harder to prove. But of course, this is OR on a controvertial topic, not something I'd submit on the Nordic Model page as some ppl here have disgracefully done.

SUMMARY: All the ideologues, right and left, want their favored ideology to be associated with a rising star, but commonality is not causality and all of the citations I see in the article -- all six of 'em ;-/ -- seem NOT to suggest causality or how left-wing/right-wing policies majorly enriched the Nordic economic ”Performance” (i.e. an economic boom) or how these policies relate, if at all, negatively or positively, to the economic performance... as opposed to the solid evidence that oil money significantly & measurably enriched them...24.155.57.184 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Faulty: Ignoring high per-capita petroleum revenue & instead --WITHOUT CITATIONS-- associating econ “performance” with (Nordic Model) policies

• 1/3rd of Norway's government revenue comes from petroleum.
• 1/4th of Norway's GDP comes from petroleum.
• Denmark and Sweden (and Finland) also have high per-capita petroleum revenues...

but, comparing apples to oranges (petrol-states vs. non-), The Nordic Model article states: e.g. #1 "According to the OECD, each year Denmark spends more than 7% of its GDP on education, Sweden 6.5% and Finland 6%, as opposed to 5.5% in United Kingdom..." e.g.#2 "Official poverty risk rate are 9% in Sweden, 10% in Denmark, 11% in Finland, 13% in France and 19% in United Kingdom...”

The point is that the entire article --but especially the "Performance" section of the article-- has the fault of associating glowing economic performance, such as the above examples, with various left AND right-wing policies of Nordic nations, without citing any connection between these policies & the econ growth (e.g. for all we know, the petroleum profits are being offset, not helped by, the welfare-state policy)... whereas in contrast, significant & measurable economic growth is due to the region's high petroleum revenues or other factors: minerals, not policies, causing econ growth.

A section of the article being titled "Performance" implies that the “performance” is due to or otherwise related to the article's topic, The Nordic Model. This is a seriously flawed article until someone provides a credible reference proving that --and to what extent-- this article's topic, "The Nordic Model," is CAUSING --or otherwise HOW it is AFFECTING OR RELEVANT/RELATED TO-- the Nordic economic boom and other 'results' shown in the "Performance" section (and in other sections of the article). "Commonality is not causality" (i.e. post hoc/ad hoc are the fallacies of logic here).

The article never even mentions revenues from the recently-developed oil fields, nor cautions that the petroleum revenues or other factors of spurious correlation even might possibly be causing the good economic "performance" stats (in this case, spurious correlation = any factors besides policy factors, i.e anything besides the policies of “The Nordic Model” and the "unnoticed factor"=petroleum). Instead, we have right-wingers posturing --without adequate citations-- about right-wing policy, and leftists posturing --again without adequate citations-- about leftist policy of The Nordic Model being somehow related to this superior "performance" AND both sides ignoring the real-world data which suggests mineral resources, not policy as a primary cause for the Nordic economic boom.

SUMMARY: All the ideologues, right and left, want their favored ideology to be associated with a rising star, but commonality is not causality and all of the citations in the article -- all six of 'em ;-/ -- seem not to suggest how left-wing/right-wing policies are any sort of major driver that is enriching (or some policies might even be a detriment to...) the Nordic economic ”Performance” (i.e. an economic boom)...as opposed to the evidence that oil money significantly & measurably enriched the Nordics. The cited stats for Norway's GDP & public revenues from petroleum are not nearly the entirety of what should be cited (in the article, as opposed to this more informal Discussion page), but the petroleum & other factors of spurious correlation should be noted, not only what promotes (promotion-by-association, the opposite of guilt by association...yet another logical fallacy) the article's Leftist AND Rightist propaganda/sophistry/POV-pushing.24.155.57.184 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to say that the economic position of Sweden and Finland has been created by income from petroleum. Both countries hardly have any oil industry(the United States produces more than 40 times as much as oil per capita as Sweden, and about 9 times as much as Finland). I also find it rather hard to believe that the main source of Danish economic performance should be the oil production, as my estimate is that oil has never contributed more than 5% to GDP.

But ofcourse, if you can find a reliable source which says that the main driver of the economic performance by Nordic countries has been oil and natural gas production, then by all means add it to the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Nordic?

Why include the Netherlands which is not Nordic? Hugo999 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It was added by this IP without any sources provided, so I have removed mention of the Netherlands again. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with bad content.

I'm in a bit of doubt. This article is clearly in a very poor condition with lots for biased statements. I wonder if it would be better simple to delete all the bad, unverified parts of this article, or if its better keep it as it is, just to have something on the subject, and then hope for someone to come along and fix it. TheFreeloader (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

this article is crud and makes no distinction between the nordic model as seen pre-1990 or so and the very different model that has subesequently gradually emerged. 94.195.129.125 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps move anything uncited that also doesn't seem to be common knowledge to this page?24.155.57.184 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In many ways it is completely misleading. Much of the information about economic freedom in Sweden is a result of the failure of the Nordic model, in Sweden, which forced a change in policy. Sweden became one of the most liberalised countries in the 1990s (partly because it had a far way to go, but also because it chose to go far, as a reaction to earlier policies). Whoever has written this does not make such distinctions.

[[[Special:Contributions/193.10.249.136|193.10.249.136]] (talk)] —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

There have been no failure of nordic model and no radical reorganization of Swedish economy. Just a slight change of emphasis.

At the core of the so called nordic model has always been strong labor unions, and their counterparts employer's organizations who have negotiated comparatively egalitarian distribution of wages, and those labor unions have shaped national politics to produce welfare states with high taxation and income transfers, strong safety net and government provided services such as education and health care. Within those constraints economic activity has always been "free", meaning distaste of tariffs, expensive severance fees and such, because, those employer's organizations have also been players in policy making arena and have contributed to public policy making.

There seem to be strong yearnings to emphasize liberal aspects of the nordic model and paint a picture that is consistent with libertarian, free market fundamentalist and neo-liberal world view. The truth is, nordic model have produced most social liberal societies that have ever existed. 80.222.183.57 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

I feel that the article is biased towards the nordic model. The criticism of the nordic model was poor, and even included a rebutual in the next sentence. I believe the article should include subjects such as "flexible labour markets", "incentives to work", hidden unemployment and "quality of services". Also, the article is biased towards economic growth in the nordic model. The growth rate of all nordic countries (excluding oil-rich Norway) is not very good, but average. Camlon1 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I'm a student of political economy and doing my dissertation on fiscal crisis, and I recognise a lot of pro-liberal consensus language in this article. Why would anyone characterise the Nordic welfare model with quotes from right wing think-tanks? I'm surprised to read that anyone thinks it is biased toward a 'pro' position. It is demonstrably not.

The thing that distinguishes the countries which successfully apply the principles of a social democratic model is the low level of income inequality compared to neoliberalised states. It seeks to ameliorate the contradiction inherent in socialising the costs of capital accumulation while retaining the profit in private hands, by redistributing some of the wealth in services for everyone. It arose out of the tripartite (labour, capital, government) post-war consensus, but has been under attack since a crisis of capital accumulation in the mid-70s (precipitated by capital) created a demand for structural changes in the social democratic model which were more beneficial to capital.

Anyway, this is the kind of information you want for this article and I haven't even scratched the surface. There is SO much to say about the social-democratic model, its promise and its contradictions.

"Flexible labour markets" and "incentives to work", this is the language of capital and the 'workfare' state.

Such language reveals a poorly-conceived bias and gossamer-thin understanding of the imperatives at work in this sort of welfare model. You need only look at Britain and America to see that such policies have made the rich richer, and the poor poorer, which is not what the Nordic welfare model is about.

Both Britain and America, as examples of neoliberalised states, also each have huge illegal migrant workforces, in the case of Britain it has been estimated that it generates about 5% of GDP. This is a result of migration policies favourable to capital. Hidden unemployment is a huge problem in Britain and America, with a great many employees working reduced hours at low-paid service sector jobs. Statistically, in the US, if you work for three hours a day three days a week, you are counted as being in employment. This is a 'flexible' labour market, where no has enforceable rights, labour is blighted by sectarian division and is buoyed only by the provision of credit facilities; made necesary by wage repression that has been going on since the 70s.

On the final point I would suggest that quality of services is irrelevant in the context of this article, this is an bureaucratic/administrative issue and one could reasonably argue that even 'average' service provision is better than nothing at all?

146.87.0.77 (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, another point of view must be represented here as well, furthermore some claims (see below) are demonstrably false. I should add that both of you do not seem to be saying contradictory things - the article is quite extremely slanted to right-wing perceptions of what are good aspects of an economic model, yet also does somehow manage to maintain a very, probably biased, favorable description of what they see as being the nordic model. Aryah (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

72.207.236.50 (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)I disagree with this. No "point of view" should be shared in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is for facts, obtained from reliable sources. That is all. If one were to delete all the sections of this article that did not cite sources or state an opinion, there would be nothing left. This is what I suggest.72.207.236.50 (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nordic Socialism

I found source at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/14/business/14compete.html that refers to "Nordic socialism". The problem is that it doesn't refer to it as "Nordic Socialism", but as "Nordic socialism" which seems like more of a description of socialism found in Nordic countries. It's not used in a "title" way like this article is. That's the only reputable source that I was able to find, and in all honesty, I feel like the term was only included in the article to be partisan. It really serves no purpose, and it's not used widely by neutral parties. I think it should be removed. If I don't get a response within a day, then I'll just remove it. 69.242.186.39 (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad link to CPI survey

The link at footnote #4 does not work anymore. The site it links to states the operators have launched a new website, and the CPI survey is not available on the old site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.215.170 (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Overview dead link: The Nordic Model - Embracing globalization and sharing risks

I believe I found an updated link as they appeared to have changed the site structure. Can anyone confirm this?

http://www.etla.fi/julkaisut/b232-fi/

http://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/B232.pdf

81.233.34.70 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup that is the same report.

Liberalism or neo-liberalism?

"Sweden's neo-liberal policies, such as reducing the role of the public sector over the last decades, has resulted in the fastest growth in inequality of any OECD economy."

I question whether it is accurate to describe the country's latest tendencies to open up the market as neo-liberal instead of simply liberal. Sweden has had a long tradition of closed markets and government monopolies, opening up these markets has lead Sweden to become more similar to other western economies, calling it "neo-liberal" makes it sound like it has somehow gone beyond the European average.

Remember that reduced government control doesn't always mean neo-liberalism, because ending monopolies is hardly extreme or neo-liberal. Everything is relative, so I think it would be more fitting to simply call it "liberlisation of the market". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.230.189.109 (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Describing the Nordic Model by using Iceland hospitals

Regarding this comment in the edits, "It's also referred to as Nordic Social Democracy. It has aspects of both capitalism and socialism (all the hospitals in Iceland are state owned and run)." While that might be true in Iceland, that's certainly not true in every Nordic country. 2601:9:4600:C93:5AB:4AFD:9DB8:3CC6 (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Almost all hospitals in the Nordic countries are state owned. For instance in Denmark there are only a few private hospitals, they specialize either in luxary care for those with too much money, or in doing factory like mass surgery for the state to close waiting lists. They are ALL however second class hospitals, if anything goes wrong on a private hospital or complications arise the patients are immidately moved to the public owned hospitals since they are better equiped and have better doctors. So change the note about Iceland. Almost all hospitals and definately all university hospital, all research hospitals and all hospitals with emergency care in the Nordic countries are state owned. Carewolf (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not exactly true. Sweden has a privatized a large part of their health sector and has been doing so for some time, and the hospitals are certainly not second class. See reference: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/18/private-healthcare-lessons-from-sweden. 2601:9:4600:C93:8CBD:85D4:F75B:CCD3 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation - Nordic model (prostitution law)

In a discussion in a feminist forum today, there was mention that this Wikipedia article does not provide a disambiguation to the now very common use of the term "Nordic Model" here in North America (and particularly Canada) to refer to the "Swedish Model" or "Nordic Model" of prostitution law. I'm wondering what the best solution is - perhaps linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden#Current_legal_status or perhaps even more accurately, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_law#Sweden.2C_Norway_and_Iceland in the disambiguation would be a solution? (As for references in NA to the Nordic Model in this context, they're very common... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/prostitution-laws-should-follow-nordic-model-former-sex-trade-worker-says-1.2554978 for example, as well as http://www.straight.com/news/595431/ottawa-eyes-nordic-model-prostitution-legislation. I note there is not a specific article on the Nordic/Swedish model that I can find... - Reecesel (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the law is unique to Sweden, it is not a nordic model in any sense, so we should avoid spreading that misuse of the term unless you can prove it is a common misuse. Carewolf (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO, it's an incredibly common 'misuse,' considering it seems to be the term of choice by nearly all media, feminists, and so on. Here's a sampling of examples. From mainstream media in Canada:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/prostitution-laws-should-follow-nordic-model-former-sex-trade-worker-says-1.2554978

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/02/20140221-074213.html

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/nordic-sex-trade-strategy-gaining-steam-251639621.html

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/feminist-current/2014/02/eu-parliament-passes-resolution-favour-nordic-model

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/20/john-ivison-flawed-report-could-be-basis-for-tories-new-prostitution-law/

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/prostitution-laws-what-are-the-nordic-and-new-zealand-models-1.1603213

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/prostitution-should-it-be-legal-yes/article17173130/

http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/11/Nordic-Prostitution-Laws/ , etc.

Internationally, it's also very commonly used: e.g.:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nordic-model-prostitution-england-wales-called-by-mp-gavin-shuker-report-1438676

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/support-for-nordic-model-on-prostitution-hailed-1-5914681

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/26/meps-vote-criminalise-buying-sex-european-parliament

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/madam-is-not-for-changing-canberras-prostitution-laws-20140320-3567d.html, etc.

- Reecesel (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

General "Neutrality" Comments

• I believe the overt problem with this article in terms of a public/mass education type read is that as currently written, a reader comes away with a very positive outlook on the Nordic Model not just as an economic organizing philosophy, but as a societal force.

• • Once can argue that it is in FACT a POSITIVE "economic organizing philosophy" though that demands a subjective opinion cast onto the reader, rather than the statistical facts, counterpoints, and contrasts.

• • On can also argue that NEGATIVE facts have been obscured in the article, and that the "philosophy/system" is in fact not well portrayed both as an 'on the ground economic reality' (I think we can agree that the Nordic model has not produced economic utopia in Scandinavia), or as a unique approach to state-sponsored economic management, a child of historical forces as much as fiat and cultural experience.

• The POINT is that this issue is very politicized, especially in the United States, where active ideological disagreements lead to common and frequent references to the Nordic Model as being an ideal to be followed, while those who disagree (FULL disclosure: I am American, and prefer the Swiss economic model above all), do so on widely divergent planes with all manner of critique.

• What I am proposing: The article intentional or not gives one the impression that the Nordic Model is the "solution" to the "problem" that is Economics. This isn't simply bias, it's completely an original and novel conclusion that befits a thesis or a book, not an information encyclopedia entry which presumes little to no advance knowledge, and hopefully presents the reader the opportunity to form a brief opinion pending further learning - I believe that is the main purpose of Wikipedia article entries; I may be wrong, that's how I use it.

• Whether because of lack of reference, statistics, or even better coverage of the LONG academic study and (American) pop-culture obsession with this issue (which is rife with misinformation of all manner), I believe the article needs serious "attention from an expert" to specifically delineate how and why the Nordic Model exists (it's close with this), the consequences of the model for the societies it is used it (weak on this), the costs and benefits (article mentions one type of tax (income?) and even then very vaguely with a number, though the income tax system is graduated I believe), costs/problems aren't really mentioned.

• I actually do NOT believe the article requires a "critique" section - Economic models, national or otherwise, should speak for themselves, and importantly, should note where conclusions are being extrapolated. (e.g. Does the Nordic Model produce low crime? This is a causation assumption (it has been studied, I don't know the current thinking), but this type of argument is tempting when one writes about economic structures. We must be cautious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commissar Mo (talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

History section is irrelevant

The history section as it currently stands is completely irrelevant to the subject of this article, listing the founding dates of social democratic and labor parties. The Nordic model is not a collection of social democratic parties (the model is not the brainchild of any specific political party), so I have removed the entire section. -Battlecry 03:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledging that Iceland's inclusion is controversial

I think the article needs to make a note of the fact that Iceland's inclusion is controversial among Icelandic historians and political scientists. The deleted paragraph cites a source that gives a decent account of how the Icelandic welfare system differs (historically and up to 2001) from its Nordic neighbors. Some even argue that Iceland is closer to the Anglo-Saxon model than the Nordic model. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so please enlighten me on the following. It seems strange to randomly add information to the article just because it's an example of criticism. Shouldn't it somehow be relevant? The latest addition to the Criticism section by Benjaminikuta reads:

One criticism of the Nordic system is that it incentivizes citizens to consume excessive public services, driving up costs, and that it drives economic activity underground, increasing public debt and ultimately resulting in a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

He then adds two poorly cited sources from books(?) written respectively 24 and 34 years ago. Where's the data to back these claims up? Has history proven them wrong? What are your thoughts? Justm (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

One criticism of the Nordic system is that it incentivizes citizens to consume excessive public services, driving up costs, and that it drives economic activity underground, increasing public debt and ultimately resulting in a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

I don't think they're unreliable just because they're old, are they? Benjamin (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Norway's particularities

Someone's been trolling articles regarding Norway, trying to make it seem like a socialist state. This article claims the following:

Some political commentators have described Norway's economy as XXI century socialism because the state maintains ownership of key industrial sectors.[42] Some have characterized Norway as "more socialist" than Venezuela and China.[43]

The sources listed are one Argentinian journalist, and one American journalist/self-described blogger. Claiming that "some commentators" say certain things, doesn't not make it a fact. These claims are utter nonsense. Even Wikipedia's own article on socialism of the 21st century doesn't mention Norway once. I suggest these claims are removed from the article as they add nothing of value to the article on the Nordic model.

Claiming that Norway is "more socialist" than China with regards to state-ownership is also utter nonsense. As of 2013, The World Economic Forum had China at 96% of SOE shares among the country's top ten firms, and Norway at 48%. Vomitmissile (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, those commentators should not be given space in the article. Removed. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC).

Agreed. Though the argument is not that Norway is a "socialist state" but has a socialist economy, which is a very different thing. Norway, like virtually all Western democracies, isn't officially a "capitalist state" either. But I agree Wikipedia should not be citing blog posts as reliable sources; there is no general consensus in the academic community that Norway's economy is socialist rather than capitalist. -Battlecry 05:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Nordic model not social democratic?

With this edit, User:Bjerrebæk removed that the Nordic model is also referred to as Nordic social democracy asserting that "The Nordic form of social democracy may be seen as a model in its own right, and social democrats have been influential in Nordic societies, but the Nordic model isn't *the same* as the ideology of one party that receives 27% of the votes." This seems to fly in the face of scholarship on the Nordic model. For example, in The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism by Danish sociologist Gøsta Esping-Andersen, there are three welfare state models, and the Nordic model is specifically referred to as social democratic (see the Welfare state Wikipedia page). Lane Kenworthy also refers to it as a social democratic model.

As of now the lede simply states that the Nordic model is also referred to as "Nordic capitalism", but the Nordic model historically and currently is more often associated with social democracy than just "capitalism"; it's the universalist welfare state which distinguishes it from the two other welfare models, which are also "capitalist" (see the Esping-Andersen source on this). IMO, Nordic social democracy should be restored to the lede or at the very least the reference to "Nordic capitalism" removed, as this seems to me to constitute UNDUE weight and is somewhat misleading and can possibly be confusing to readers. I'd like to get other editors input on this.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Both "Nordic social democracy" and "Nordic capitalism" have now been removed from the lead section; I agree with the rationale offered by User:Somedifferentstuff in this edit.[1] These terms are not the widely used names of the concept commonly known as the Nordic model, a model that is based on a variety of influences and whose roots predate the social democratic/labour movement (the once dominant liberal parties in the Nordic countries were at least as important as the social democratic parties in the historical evolution of the model).

In particular, the term "Nordic social democracy" is unclear. Social democracy, as the term is understood in Europe, is specifically a left-wing political ideology, namely the ideology of the labour parties. While the term "Nordic social democracy" is found in some sources, most of them seem to discuss the political ideology and not the Nordic societies as such, or at best it's unclear what they refer to. Within social democracy/the labour movement, the Nordic form of social democracy may certainly be seen as a model in its own right. And while it is true that social democrats have been influential in the Nordic countries in the postwar years, it's a gross oversimplification to name the countries' political systems as such "Nordic social democracy", in the same way as the tendency of the current American government to refer to our Nordic societies as "(Nordic) socialism" (the Nordic countries have never been socialist and have nothing to do with socialism). The Norwegian Labour Party received some 27 % of the votes in the last election and a right-wing government has been in power for many years. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

But I would contend, again, that it's the universalist nature of the Nordic model which makes it social democratic, and that has persevered regardless of what political party has taken power. But it's moot at this point as I agree with the edit made by User:Somedifferentstuff as well. Hopefully this puts the issue to rest.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The universalist nature of the Nordic model predates social democracy. Free education was offered even when the countries were absolute monarchies. Free healthcare was offered since the advent of modern medicine in the 19th century. What eventually became known as the welfare state can trace its origins to a succession of reforms introduced by 19th century and early 20th century liberals, nowadays grouped as centre-right or centrist parties. When social democrats came into power well into the 20th century they built on and refined and improved a system that was already there. American sources tend to misunderstand or oversimplify the origins of the Nordic model; for example a recently published White House report purportedly about the Nordic model (falsely referred to as "socialism" and bizarrely compared to Venezuela) was widely branded as "fake news" by Nordic commentators[2],[3]. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that this is simply some erroneous American view of the Nordic model. In fact, the source I provided in my original post, Danish sociologist Gøsta Esping-Andersen, states that the welfare model of the Nordic countries (and the Netherlands) is a social democratic model (as opposed to the Christian democratic and liberal models). In his description of the social democratic model, he specifically describes its universalist nature, and makes no reference to political ideology or political parties. I quote: "The Social-Democratic welfare state model is based on the principle of Universalism, granting access to benefits and services based on citizenship. Such a welfare state is said to provide a relatively high degree of citizen autonomy, limiting reliance on family and market."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Effect of religion

I agree with @1.41.125.235: that a single source is inadequate to make the link between Lutheranism and the Nordic model. @Vif12vf: could you discuss on here rather than reverting without any reasoning. Bellowhead678 (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I've just seen that Vif12vf posted on User talk:1.41.125.235 saying "Certain nordic countries are anything but irreligious, and irreligion was not common when the Nordic model was first developed!". Bellowhead678 (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed a very strange thing to read as a title, on an article on the Nordic Model. Especially considering that, insofar as this kind of lazy speculation goes, it is typically purely capitalism, and not the mixed economy/welfare state, that is associated with Protestantism (including Lutheranism).... most [in]famously by that notorious amateur Weber. 1.41.125.235 (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Statistical data on levels of church attendance before the 1960s is fragmentary, but what there is suggests that the low levels of religious participation recorded later in the century were not so new. Clergy returns for Denmark, even excluding the metropolis of Copenhagen, where levels of church attendance were known to be exceptionally low, recorded that only about 8 percent of Danes attended Lutheran services on “an average Sunday” in the 1930s, falling to 6 percent in the 1940s, 5 percent in the 1950s, and 4 percent in the 1960s…In Sweden in 1927 it is estimated that only 5.6 percent attended a Lutheran church on a normal Sunday; by the 1950s it was under three percent. - Brian Stanley, Christianity in the Twentieth Century: A World History, published by Princeton University Press. Google is your friend. 1.41.125.235 (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: since you made the last revert i think it would be nice if you could add your comments here! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I basically reiterate what I stated in my edit summary. The material is reliably sourced, and mentions that the Scandinavian countries tend to be largely irreligious at present. The idea that Lutheranism had an effect on the development of the Nordic welfare model is nothing new and doesn't seem controversial (just because a significant number of Scandinavians are currently irreligious doesn't mean that the Lutheran church as a cultural institution has had no effect on the development of Scandinavian society or its political institutions throughout the history of the region). Other sources note the connection between the two. It seems reasonable to include this, but if the consensus on talk goes against it I wouldn't lose sleep over it being removed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well currently there is a 2-2 stalemate, though i highly agree with your points. Lets see what the other two thinks in light of your comments. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The source (Schroder) does not say what is implied by the text of this article. Here is the exact contents:

"5.4 Summary and limitations of the approach

How can the aforementioned country differences and similarities be summed up? The broadest difference runs between liberal and nonliberal countries. Non-liberal countries can be subdivided into those where solidarity and coordination are nationwide and those where solidarity and coordination exist in social groups, but not beyond them. In one sentence, coordination and solidarity failed to thrive in Anglo-American countries, while both extended to social groups in continental Europe (and Japan) and to entire nations in Scandinavia (Martin and Swank 2012: 28). Solidarity and economic coordination have a similar reach because the same influences either extend or limit both. All English-speaking countries (with the exception of Ireland) to a large degree adhere to Calvinism or closely related forms of Protestantism. The individualism that Calvinism propagates makes both the welfare state and the production system liberal. Scandinavian countries adhere to Lutheranism. Lutheranism promotes the idea of a nationwide community of believers and it promotes state-interference in economic and social life. This allows nationwide welfare solidarity and economic coordination. The conservatively coordinated countries share (with the exception of Japan) an adherence to Catholicism. Catholicism advocates that the social order should not be upset, neither through the market, nor through the state. Instead, the Catholic principle of subsidiarity promotes cooperation within one’s social group, but not beyond it. It therefore promotes a conservative welfare state and a group-coordinated production system. Of course, this is only the rough picture, leaving much room for country-level details. For example, Ireland was only indirectly influenced through Calvinism, by Britain; Japan was not directly influenced by Catholicism, but imitated Germany. In any case, this scheme does not imply that countries uniformly adhere to one value or even regime type, as Goodin et al. (1999: 36) aptly mention:

Liberal welfare regimes attach relatively more importance to economic efficiency than do other welfare regimes. Social democratic welfare regimes value economic efficiency too: they just attach relatively more importance to equality than do other welfare regimes. Corporatists value economic efficiency too; they just attach relatively more importance to social integration and social stability than do other welfare regimes. Those differing emphases are what is distinctive about each welfare regime.

It is indeed crucial to talk of ‘differing emphases’, instead of thinking that countries follow exclusively one goal to the detriment of all others. Nonetheless, the scheme proposed here argues that countries clearly belong to certain poles more than to others. Liberal capitalism limited cooperation in the welfare and in the production system; social democratic capitalism implies nationwide cooperation in the welfare and the production system and conservatively coordinated capitalism exhibits group-based cooperation in both systems. Table 5.1 sketches out the typology that results from this."

This is a sociology text. Sociology as a field is highly contested, by its very nature. I can just as easily provide sources which argue that Nordic social democracy is a product of secularism (Harding, 2015; Tomasson 2002). C.J. Griffin, I'm sure you will agree, just because you can find something through Google, or in a book, or in a journal article, doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article on a specific topic. I could add sources which argue against any role of religion in the development of the Nordic Model to add "balance", but that would turn the article into an argument in-text - and for no good reason. The proposition that Lutheranism played some notable role in the development of Nordic social democracy is a speculative one, a relatively fringe one. It's a area for research, surely, but it goes against conventional wisdom. Including it in such a [relatively] short article on the topic, is misleading and adds undue weight. I don't want to have to clutter the article by including the preponderance of opinion that regards Nordic social democracy as a secular project. 1.41.125.235 (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to note that I believe a reading of this excerpt above should give one some indication about its quality. I have some professional expertise in this area, and I can tell you that the above text is a perfect example of why Sociology departments at universities are held in such low regard. Their consistent preference for abstract models that necessitate gross oversimplifications and generalizations, to the neglect of historical data and cultural specificities. As an historian, and also as a person in possession of a degree of common sense, I find his model of "Classsical Liberal = Calvinist; Social Democrat = Lutheran; Conservative = Catholic" laughable to the point of parody.... as would anyone who spends 20 minutes reading about the history of liberalism, social democracy, and conservatism, the most famous exponents of each did not come from the specific denomination of Western Christianity that Schroder suggests. 1.41.125.235 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I added another source (and it's relatively easy to find more.) You also overlooked a lot more text in the source being cited; from pg. 155: This is because they were all influenced by Lutheranism, which extended the idea of solidarity to the entire nation, instead of keeping it contained within social groups. Lutheranism argued that the state should minimize social inequalities, as it promoted the view that each ‘individual had to be awakened to fulfil himself and the purpose of his own life’ (Thorkildsen 1997: 157f.). This is far from the Catholic view that poverty should be accepted or the Calvinist view that it is God’s punishment. These countries thus firmly believed that the state should help the worse-off. I don't think we can omit scholarship about the historical connection between Lutheranism and the Nordic model. What we can do is word it more cautiously and reflect the sources more closely, so I suggest improving the section rather than deleting it. (In particular, Schröder is contrasting Lutheranism with Calvinism and Reformed Protestantism, not saying, as you seem to be interpreting the current text, that the Nordic countries are unusually religious. We could include that context if you want.) Likewise the fact that this history of Lutheranism led to a more socialist model than countries influenced by Calvinism isn't incompatible with the Nordic countries also being more secular. EDIT: I've also expanded it to mention "secularized Lutheranism", which a lot of the sources touch on as part of this aspect and which might address your concerns by acknowledging the secular nature of the Nordic countries today. --Aquillion (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have at least discussed the changes you've made, but in my view all you've done is extend the problem. You've taken a fringe view, and made it appear mainstream. Now I am obliged to include sources that argue against the role of Lutheranism, synthesize their arguments, in order to create a false sense of balance. I'm sure I could find a source that argues that Marxism played a role too (which would also be a fringe view), or Emmanuel Swedenborg for that matter. This is precisely the type of case where Wikipedia often goes awry... just because somebody, somewhere, has written something, in an apparently reliable source, doesn't mean it ought to be included in an encyclopedia article - especially, without proper context (your edits provide no context, historical or cultural). 1.41.125.235 (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, do you think you're doing due diligence in evaluating the quality of the sources? For example, do you think that "the Catholic view that poverty should be accepted" is an accurate thing to say? Do you think that the allegedly Lutheran view that the "individual had to be awakened to fulfil [sic] himself and the purpose of his own life" has a causal relationship with the development of the Nordic model, is sufficiently demonstrated by the evidence presented? 1.41.125.235 (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Nordic has less progressive taxation and high wealth Inequality

According to CEA, nordic countries has low progressivity around 1.1 which means People at the bottom income level pay much taxes. Moreover, They are not egalitarian countries Why did you only put 'income' what about wealth? According to Credit Sussie 2019, Nordic countries 'wealth Inequality' is Higher than other European countries. You should face the facts not the ideology. Okay? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/cea-report-opportunity-costs-socialism/ https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html Shfur0306 (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You're going to have to be a little more specific, both with what you think is wrong with the article (and I agree, there are many things), and the data to which you're referring to. The first link you posted makes some potentially interesting points, but it is only of tangential relevance ("socialized" medicine, tax rates) to overall wealth inequality.

While the the second link, Credit Suisse, clearly has lots of good data,[4] but you're going to have to point out for us exactly what you found there that supports your contention.

Most importantly, all reliable sources state that the Nordic countries score relatively low - not the lowest, this is true - on income inequality. For this you can see Wikipedia's existing articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) or check out sources like the European Commission (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20190718-1 and https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Regional_labour_market_disparities&oldid=271775). In Europe, only Czechia and Slovakia have "better" stats for income equality. TomReagan90 (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

TomReagan90/ you are shifting the topics with a sly way. My point was clear, Tax Progressivity in Nordic countries is low as 1.1 while US has high one. Th3 CEA report clearly shows thar. I'm talking about wealth Inequality not Income. Credit Sussie report clearly shows us Nordic countries have high inequality on wealth. (Moreover, those ones are mostly inheritance) Anything not clear? Shfur0306 (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

'Total welfare spending' is higher In US than Nordic

Why this site keep assuming that US is Lasse faire with few government spending? which is far from truth(40% of GDP). According to OECD, Total net social spending to gdp in US is 30% which is second highest followed by France. That number is higher than any other Nordic ones. Why not mention? Wikipedia is so biased. Do you have any intentions? https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm Shfur0306 (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you perhaps considered that the total population of the Nordic countries combined is at 27,359,000 according to 2019 estimates whereas the population of the US is at 328,239,523 according to 2019 estimates? Countries with higher populations need to spend more money on various aspects of welfare in order to cover more people! Simply looking at how much a country is spending on welfare does not make a country more of a welfare-state than others. Fact is still that the US does not have a free school-system, universal/single-payer healthcare or any considerable amount of public housing, the Nordic countries however do! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Shfur0306, the link you provided says that the US social spending was 18.7% of GDP, significantly lower than the Nordic countries. Bellowhead678 (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Also since you are mentioning Laissez-faire economics, the Nordic governments have put various regulations on private companies, have several state-owned companies and take a highly active role in the economy, the US economy is however highly unregulated, almost entirely privately owned, severely undertaxed and with very little interference from the US government. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Tiberius//Are you kidding? Can you do simple math? That amounts of money divided into GDP! So population does not matter! And where is the free stuff? There's nothing free somebody has to pay. Why not mention? US spends the most on education per pupil! And Medicare, Medicaid plus EITC! Shfur0306 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Bellowhead678//sigh...I'm talking about'Total net' not 'public' It is 30% of GDP which is the second highest on OECD. Isn't that enough? Shfur0306 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Tiberius// You need to be specific based on credible data, not arguing with your ideology or fiction. According to OECD product market regulation index, Nordics have loose regulation than America. They have high level of economic freedom. I wrote about economy history of them:19C of Laissez faire, mid 20C of Socialism plus Corporatism and since 1990s, they adopted Market liberalization which you loathe. Yeah Norway has a big pension fund run by the state but Sweden has lots of private sectors. I was specific on Data, they have lower tax progressivity than America. Average workers and even minimum wage workers pay much more taxes there. Corporate tax rates are lower than America. Specifically enough? https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?datasetcode=PMR&lang=en Shfur0306 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Shfur0306: it does appear there's an attempt to present the Nordic model as some sort of progressive (from an American perspective) utopia when in reality it's based on a highly liberal form of capitalism and refrains from interventions into markets, save for labor market regulation (though most of this is done through collective bargaining). The Nordic countries lack minimum wage laws and favor private ownership of enterprises where ever possible (the exception being Norway). Social spending isn't that much higher per capita than in Anglo-Saxon economies like the US. Any mention of capitalism in the lede has been suspiciously removed, despite being well-sourced that the Nordic model is based on, and considered to be, a model of capitalism. -Battlecry 11:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Battlecry, that is true, but it is also true that the opposite is done to deny any praise of socialism and what socialist politicians, parties and thinkers did outside the Soviet Bloc, even if they did not abolish capitalism because they were reformist, pragmatic or simply more moderate. It also depends on what definitions one uses of capitalism and socialism. We do not have the 19th-century laissez-faire capitalism, although since the 1970s there has been a resurgence in that regard. You can see in how capitalism is defined as mixed economies (good) while socialism is defined as the Soviet Union et al. (bad) and now even Venezuela, even though it does not even fit the "centrally-planned" definition and ironically fits more the social-democratic, post-war consensus, anti-neoliberal model; and even though many academics describe the Soviet Union et al. as state capitalist or deny they were planned economies or even "centrally-planned", favouring "centrally-managed" and "command-administrative" system. The Right see any "state intervention" as "socialism" and "bad", but then ignore all the same state intervention that was important in reaching the "capitalist" results they praise so much; or how Communist China is the reason much poverty has been reduced, even though it's still state-managed, albeit liberalized. So it goes both sides. In other words, both the Nordic model and the Soviet model generally followed the capitalist mode of production, yet only one is called capitalism (good) and the other socialism (bad). By the way, I agree with your criticism of the Nordic model. —Davide King (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation - Nordic model (prostitution law)

In a discussion in a feminist forum today, there was mention that this Wikipedia article does not provide a disambiguation to the now very common use of the term "Nordic Model" here in North America (and particularly Canada) to refer to the "Swedish Model" or "Nordic Model" of prostitution law. I'm wondering what the best solution is - perhaps linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden#Current_legal_status or perhaps even more accurately, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_law#Sweden.2C_Norway_and_Iceland in the disambiguation would be a solution? (As for references in NA to the Nordic Model in this context, they're very common... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/prostitution-laws-should-follow-nordic-model-former-sex-trade-worker-says-1.2554978 for example, as well as http://www.straight.com/news/595431/ottawa-eyes-nordic-model-prostitution-legislation. I note there is not a specific article on the Nordic/Swedish model that I can find... - Reecesel (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the law is unique to Sweden, it is not a nordic model in any sense, so we should avoid spreading that misuse of the term unless you can prove it is a common misuse. Carewolf (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO, it's an incredibly common 'misuse,' considering it seems to be the term of choice by nearly all media, feminists, and so on. Here's a sampling of examples. From mainstream media in Canada:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/prostitution-laws-should-follow-nordic-model-former-sex-trade-worker-says-1.2554978

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/02/20140221-074213.html

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/nordic-sex-trade-strategy-gaining-steam-251639621.html

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/feminist-current/2014/02/eu-parliament-passes-resolution-favour-nordic-model

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/20/john-ivison-flawed-report-could-be-basis-for-tories-new-prostitution-law/

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/prostitution-laws-what-are-the-nordic-and-new-zealand-models-1.1603213

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/prostitution-should-it-be-legal-yes/article17173130/

http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/11/Nordic-Prostitution-Laws/ , etc.

Internationally, it's also very commonly used: e.g.:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nordic-model-prostitution-england-wales-called-by-mp-gavin-shuker-report-1438676

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/support-for-nordic-model-on-prostitution-hailed-1-5914681

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/26/meps-vote-criminalise-buying-sex-european-parliament

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/madam-is-not-for-changing-canberras-prostitution-laws-20140320-3567d.html, etc.

- Reecesel (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

General "Neutrality" Comments

• I believe the overt problem with this article in terms of a public/mass education type read is that as currently written, a reader comes away with a very positive outlook on the Nordic Model not just as an economic organizing philosophy, but as a societal force.

• • Once can argue that it is in FACT a POSITIVE "economic organizing philosophy" though that demands a subjective opinion cast onto the reader, rather than the statistical facts, counterpoints, and contrasts.

• • On can also argue that NEGATIVE facts have been obscured in the article, and that the "philosophy/system" is in fact not well portrayed both as an 'on the ground economic reality' (I think we can agree that the Nordic model has not produced economic utopia in Scandinavia), or as a unique approach to state-sponsored economic management, a child of historical forces as much as fiat and cultural experience.

• The POINT is that this issue is very politicized, especially in the United States, where active ideological disagreements lead to common and frequent references to the Nordic Model as being an ideal to be followed, while those who disagree (FULL disclosure: I am American, and prefer the Swiss economic model above all), do so on widely divergent planes with all manner of critique.

• What I am proposing: The article intentional or not gives one the impression that the Nordic Model is the "solution" to the "problem" that is Economics. This isn't simply bias, it's completely an original and novel conclusion that befits a thesis or a book, not an information encyclopedia entry which presumes little to no advance knowledge, and hopefully presents the reader the opportunity to form a brief opinion pending further learning - I believe that is the main purpose of Wikipedia article entries; I may be wrong, that's how I use it.

• Whether because of lack of reference, statistics, or even better coverage of the LONG academic study and (American) pop-culture obsession with this issue (which is rife with misinformation of all manner), I believe the article needs serious "attention from an expert" to specifically delineate how and why the Nordic Model exists (it's close with this), the consequences of the model for the societies it is used it (weak on this), the costs and benefits (article mentions one type of tax (income?) and even then very vaguely with a number, though the income tax system is graduated I believe), costs/problems aren't really mentioned.

• I actually do NOT believe the article requires a "critique" section - Economic models, national or otherwise, should speak for themselves, and importantly, should note where conclusions are being extrapolated. (e.g. Does the Nordic Model produce low crime? This is a causation assumption (it has been studied, I don't know the current thinking), but this type of argument is tempting when one writes about economic structures. We must be cautious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commissar Mo (talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

History section is irrelevant

The history section as it currently stands is completely irrelevant to the subject of this article, listing the founding dates of social democratic and labor parties. The Nordic model is not a collection of social democratic parties (the model is not the brainchild of any specific political party), so I have removed the entire section. -Battlecry 03:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledging that Iceland's inclusion is controversial

I think the article needs to make a note of the fact that Iceland's inclusion is controversial among Icelandic historians and political scientists. The deleted paragraph cites a source that gives a decent account of how the Icelandic welfare system differs (historically and up to 2001) from its Nordic neighbors. Some even argue that Iceland is closer to the Anglo-Saxon model than the Nordic model. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Heritage Foundation" as source

It's just a detail, but I think this should be removed as a source, as is at least, controversial (as this "Foundation" has openly racists members -Jason Richwine-, worked closely with terrorist group Contras in Nicaragua on Reagan's administration, etc.)

Agustin6 (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Allegations that the Nordic model is a mix of capitalism and socialism

The claim that the Nordic model represents a form a "hybrid" between capitalism and socialism is false and usually only made by Americans and articles by those who are not well versed in comparative economic systems. The actual economic mechanisms are free-market capitalist - relatively free markets and high concentrations of private ownership (the only exception being Norway, where the state owns shares in publicly traded corporations), with no economic planning. The Nordic model is even more lassiez-faire than Continental European economies such as France, and Swedes don't even describe their model as being "socialist" (despite having been governed by a Social democratic party for decades). What can be said is the Nordic model achieves some of the outcomes socialists like to see (greater equality, etc.) using capitalist processes and judicious use of policy for income redistribution.

I have removed this material from the lead and placed it in a subsection called "foreign perspectives". -Battlecry 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Environmental and labour regulations in scandinavia are the world´s toughest, salaries are decided through national scale semi-corporatist agreements, their welfare state is the largest and most generous in the world incluiding free education and healthcare, the scandinavian countries are at the lowest range of GINI index which measures inequality and it is even much more low than self-described "communist" China (see List_of_countries_by_income_equality#Gini_coefficient,_after_taxes_and_transfers), and socialdemocratic and labour parties have governed those countries the most since the 1930s. Socialist thought has also included since its beginnings pro-market thinkers (see market socialism) such as Thomas Hodgskin and Pierre Joseph Proudhon. As far as "comparative economic systems" the Varieties of capitalism and of welfare state approach puts scandinavian countries inside a "socialdemocratic" label while it puts the US and the Uk inside a liberal one and countries like Spain and Japan inside a conservative one (check Integrating Varieties of Capitalism and Welfare State Research: A Unified Typology of Capitalisms By Martin Schröder. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).--Eduen (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The Nordic Model is founded on a state that does take care of a lot of stuff that has seen been privatized: this includes public transportation, energy production and a slew other things. In particular Denmark was much more socialistic before the EU demanded massive reformations towards a more privatized national economy in the 1990's. It is not true that the methods used to achieve what is achieved, are capitalistic. The tools used are collective bargaining, freedom of association, freedom of expression and free speech (things that are not part of the definition of capitalism). No capitalistic traits are used in this process at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.107.15.50 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Somedifferentstuff, in regard to this, I got it. But there was no need to undue all the edits as you did here. Your arguments about History removal fail because the article was still in line with policies regarding space, as it was way less than 100,000 characters and 10,000 words. If the issue is about welfare, the solution is to add, summarizing, also the other aspects, not removing it outright. WP:EXCESSDETAIL actually fails because you did not provide any article alternative where that still relevant information could be moved. As for the overview section, it is always better to use prose than list, so I do not see why you felt the need to revert it and state "DO NOT completely change the Aspects and overview section WITHOUT first discussing on the talk page." What is so controversial about it that it needs discussion? Again, you removed this has been described as the Great Capitalist Restoration of the 1980s and 1990s, which started in Sweden. This is supported by O'Hara, a tertiary source, which is the contrary of undue, and by History.

Contrary to your claims, "Great Capitalist Restornation" is not an uncommon terminology to describe the entrenchment of the welfare state and the neoliberal shift paradigm, and it is backed by a tertiary source, which means it is likely due; as I wrote here, I have no problem including both analyses, especially since O'Hara provide context for the shift away from neoliberalism mentioned by Liukas 2019; you may also be engaging in recentism by dismissing a good tertiary source. Your removal removes the context for what Liukas 2019 was talking about. However, a recent (2019) analysis points to a shift away from neoliberalism and "towards the repoliticisation of the Nordic welfare state," including increased cooperation between the Nordic countries. This is not good wording for the lead. My previous copy editing (2019 analysis points to a shift away from neoliberalism and a repoliticization of the Nordic model, including increased cooperation between the Nordic countries.) was better, as it paraphrased without using quotes and the awkward However, a recent (2019) analysis wording. I just do not see why include only the latter, which may be recentist. Davide King (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. For the History removal, you should self-revert and re-add it until there is consensus to remove it in the first place. It was part of the unwritten long-standing consensus, you removed it, so the onus is on you on why it should be removed. The rest is on me but I believe I have demonstrated that my edits were perfectly fine and in line with our policies. Davide King (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi Davide, thank you for responding to my request for discussion on your talk page.

First, WP:EXCESSDETAIL has nothing to do with article space.

Second, prose is generally better, not always; the Overview section in this article has a particular layout that is better digested by the reader using bullet point formatting.

Third, "Great Capitalist Restoration" may be fine to add to the article but doesn't necessarily belong in the lede; the context displayed in the final paragraph of the lede still holds up with its removal. I can not access the source <"O'Hara 1999">; since you added it to the article please provide a direct quote from page 1248 regarding the material you would like to add. I need to be able to ascertain its usage in relation to the Nordic model.

Fourth, "However, a recent (2019) analysis" / I've adjusted this to More recently; the reason for using this type of verbiage is to indicate a recent shift in relation to what is explained earlier on in the paragraph.

Lastly, please stop adding header articles such as "Welfare in Sweden, Welfare in Norway, etc" - I have already explained why this is not appropriate here [5]

--Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, thanks to you. :)

(1) Actually, I noticed only now that WP:EXCESSDETAIL is not a policy but an essay, so you cannot use that to support the removal.

(2) I do not find it particularly useful, especially when it includes such small wording like Public pension plans. and other parts that can be easily merged. Again, you did not cite an actual policy and guideline for why my prose editing was not an improvement.

(3) I think it does belong and is relevant in light of Liukacs 2019; both are complementary to each other. Also, I am not sure whether I was the one to actually add it, since the section was created by Battlecry here. Anyway, p. 1248 is already quoted in the body: "Sweden eventually became part of the Great Capitalist Restoration of the 1980s and 1990s. In all the industrial democracies and beyond, this recent era has seen the retrenchment of the welfare state by reduced social spending in real terms, tax cuts, deregulation and privatization, and a weakening of the influence of organized labor." It is relevant as background and history, and perfectly in line with Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the traditional model has been in decline in some areas, including increased deregulation and the expanding privatization of public services ... O'Hara, a tertiary source, simply describes this process as the "Great Capitalist Restoration", and says that among the Nordic countries it started in Sweden.

(4) No issue with that. I think that we should not use currently or recently without at least adding a year or decade. I still believe O'Hara complements that and is relevant for context.

(5) My bad for that, I thought the main issues was that I used Main article, not any See also or Further information link. I still think that they are fine as See also, and that you may add other relevant links to each section, or we may put them at See also section. Anyway, it is not a big deal to me. Davide King (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

My prose is fairly divided: (1) key facts and aspects; (2) free trade and trade unions; (3) public spending and taxes; (4) rankings. You are free to further improve and copy edit it but I really do not see how it is not an improvement over such confusing mess, with no structure. Davide King (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Davide King,

1) Not a big deal, just make sure you fill up the history sections of the other countries as well! not just Sweden ; )

Also, you have to think of the reader; many people do not come to Wikipedia to read a history book!

2) I completely disagree. When someone is looking at DATA such as this, bullet points are much easier to digest. I looked at your prose and it is horrible, sorry. This has also been the consensus formatting for over 7 years [6]

3) I'm fine with the sourcing but it doesn't need to be in the lede. How about adding it to the 3rd paragraph of the Background and history section?

5) The Nordic Model is about more than welfare so linking to those is inappropriate/misleading. I'm fine with putting those links in the See also section at the bottom of the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(1) Doing that together would be even better and faster. I am better at copy editing than creation, or at least I would need some help for the literature or something that summarize it, so that it is easier to paraphrase.

(2) I would be curious about what others think and what is so horrible about it; it may also lead to easily avoidable complications like, why something is placed higher or so low, there is no criteria, etc. I did not actually wrote any of that, I just divided it into four, clear paragraphs.

(3) It is already in that section and my wording was simply a summary for the lead. If it was any other secondary source, you may have been right but it is a tertiary one and that makes it due for the lead. Again, it is important for the context of that paragraph. Incidentally, Liukas 2019, which I have actually added, is a secondary source, and I do not see why it should be given more weight than a tertiary source. Either both are there or none should be, because I can not see how a secondary news source, even if good and reliable, makes it to the lead but a an academic tertiary source does not. Both should stay because the first expands and clarifies the neoliberal paradigm, while the second "points to a shift away from neoliberalism and a repoliticization of the Nordic model"; they are interlinked.

(5) Of course, I just wish you could have added or find other See also links related but not limited to welfare; if there are not any, then I am fine too with putting them at the bottom. Davide King (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

1) How much HISTORY is appropriate? How many paragraphs? Is 3 enough? 5? 10? Where do you draw the line?

2) We can discuss bullet point organization as well as input from other editors.

3) You are incorrect; a tertiary source does not determine whether or not it belongs in the lede (see: WP:WEIGHT). With that said, I understand your point regarding context; re-added "Great Capitalist Restoration" to lede [7]

-- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits.

(1) I think this is a false problem, but I would say no more than what we write for Sweden is fine, and it is likely to make it even shorter.

(2) I agree. We may have a RfC about it on whether to use bullet list or prose (use both versions as example but being open minded about further copy editing to both).

(3) I do not think it is incorrect, tertiary sources are the best source for determining weight ("If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts", which is what I did), but thank you for re-adding it.

(4) In regards to this, I agree but I was trying to paraphrasing The fragmentation of the common Nordic base can also be attributed to the countries’ different political approaches to the EU. Finland was keen to get closer to the core of the EU, whereas many in Sweden opposed the EU. Denmark had already joined the Union in the 1970s, but Norway did not want to join at all. While Sweden and Finland were in a deep recession, Norway began to earn lucrative oil revenues and regained its national identity through the success of its athletes. Please, feel free to improve it and better paraphrase it.

Thank you for your kindness and respect. Davide King (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)