

On MPs' expenses, Iranian dissidents, Chrysler, Nordic countries, genetic information, the Supreme Court

See article

Readers' comments


Niklas Smith

@neo econ: Interesting point. In fact, Johan Norberg wrote on his blog (in Swedish in this case, sadly) that there seems to be a higher rate of suicide amongst the Swedish population than amongst American veterans of the Iraq War: http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=11&year=2007#2440

But I'm a bit sceptical that suicide rates can be explained purely by the economic system. It may be that people are more prone to depression in northerly countries because there is less sunlight. It would be nice to have a European comparison to see if there is a north-south gradient. And I certainly don't think that respect and honour are absent from Scandinavia!

@Urgsmurgs: on A) I had forgotten about the Australian windfall from natural resources, but the data I had at my fingertips only had a limited number of countries to compare. And Norway has benefited far more from oil and gas than Britain (and indeed the USA) because a windfall at least as large is shared among a much, much smaller population (not to mention that Britain's North Sea oil is now running out).

The limited dataset also explains (B) why the data ended in 2007. Doing the comparison ending in 2009 is unlikely to flatter Sweden at any rate, as its GDP is falling off a cliff faster than even the UK's (countries with large manufacturing sectors such as Sweden and Germany are suffering more than service-heavy countries like the UK). And I should reiterate that the gap is quite large. For those interested, I used this excellent website for my comparison: http://ekonomifakta.se/en/Facts_and_figures/GDP/Economic_growth/GDP/

On C) I don't think the Nordic model is all bad, as I said in my original comment. But as I pointed out, income equality has been bought at the price of wealth inequality; personally I feel that inequality of wealth offends my sense of justice more than inequality of income.


Shareholders vote on the board's salary.
If the board and CEO perform well, they get a good pay raise. Else they are sacked.
Apply the same principle here. Let voters decide the salary for MP's as a referrendum. If they serve well, they get bonuses to pave their swimming pool, else they get a job to clean one.


The comments made by the readers on the expenses scandal do appear to be interestingly appropriate.

The MPs cannot be above the voters they represent. And when lawmakers decide to break the laws instead of enforcing them steadfastly, the system itself is open to question and scrutiny.

Don’t tell me Britain has already relegated to yet another European casino.
Would anyone still remember the golden days of the British Empire when the sun never set?
(Tan Boon Tee)


Ok, so from the comments so far we have learned that:
A) British, Australian Canadian or American basic rescource windfalls dont count, just Norwegian ones.
B) The last 15 years in 2009 end in 2007. Adjustments for population growth are obsolete
C) Using gdp growth to proof a point about northern countries is cherry picking data. Right, since northern countries do so much worse when it comes to life expectancy, income inequality, crime or education. Moreover, two rights make it wrong, if you think the other side uses cherry picked data, one is alowed to cherry pick even more.
D) Higher marginal tax rates than the USA= socialism


I guess since we are cherry-picking a few indicators to make a case for socialism, perhaps we should add some balance and look at the national suicide rates for the countries discussed to contrast the effects of the mediocrity that often accompanies “Western” socialism.

(source: World Health Organization, most recent annual suicide rates reported by member countries.)

As for the Scandinavian countries and Finland, they all rate in the top 40 countries for suicide rate (meaning the 40 worst countries), with Finland 15th, Denmark 27th, Sweden 28th and Norway 38th. Finland is almost double that of the US and three times that of the UK. Sweden and Denmark are about 20% higher than the rate of the US and more than twice that of the UK.

As for France, they were 19th with Germany at 30th.

Sorry Professor Rothstein, a few bits of disjointed data don’t always tell a complete story. Fans of Karl Marx will have to wait for utopian socialism to sprout somewhere else. My guess: somewhere where respect for one another and honour (traits noticeably absent in Sweden and Denmark) may have managed to survive in a modern socialist setting.

Niklas Smith

Prof. Rothstein makes some good points on the economic performance of the Nordic countries, but his letter is rather spoiled by an inaccurate statement that "they have outperformed most of their neoliberal Anglo-Saxon counterparts as well as France and Germany in economic growth during the past 15 years."

In fact, Sweden and Denmark are all outperformed in terms of GDP growth from 1992 to 2007 by the USA, Britain and Australia. Norway slightly outperforms Britain and the United States, though the comparison is probably not fair as Norway has benefited from an oil and gas bounty. (Prof. Rothstein is entirely correct that the Nordic countries performed much better than France and Germany.)

It is also worth pointing out that low corruption and strong rule of law are partly cultural factors rather than political ones.

I am half-Swedish myself, and a part-time resident of the delightful city of Gothenburg from which Prof. Rothstein also hails. There are certainly some things I like about the "Nordic model", not least government spending on education from early years to university. But while this "creates a sense of equality of opportunity", in fact Sweden has a more unequal distribution of wealth (as opposed to income) than either Britain or the United States, with a Gini coefficient of 89. (Source: Luxembourg Wealth Study, Working Paper 1, Table 9: http://www.lisproject.org/publications/lwswps/lws1.pdf)

Only 68% of Swedish households have a positive net worth (compared with 82% in the UK); 27% have a negative net worth (11% in the UK). The problem is the high taxes on earned income make it very difficult to accumulate wealth if you're starting from scratch. Rather than having their own savings for a rainy day, far too many Swedes have no choice but to rely on the benefits system. Quite apart from the problems of dependency, no safety net can catch everyone. Some people get a decidedly raw deal, especially young people who suffer 24.3% youth unemployment and are ineligable for unemployment insurance because they do not have a long enough history of employment.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The crisis in Venezuela: Another day, more bodies
Americas view March 13th, 16:49
A tribute to Robert Ashley: A perfect life
Prospero March 13th, 16:22
Commodities and the economy: Copper bottomed
Buttonwood's notebook March 13th, 15:58
Germany's Hoeness trial: Uli goes to jail
Charlemagne March 13th, 14:18
El Salvador's election: An extraordinary result
Americas view March 13th, 14:13


Products & events