Thoughts on economics and liberty

Scandinavian countries are super-capitalist with the terrible baggage of a HUGE welfare state

This is my further comment on Kanishka Sinha’s FB post, that I referred to here.

In this I show Kanishka that the laws of economics are INVIOLABLE. They never change, no matter where you go or live. I will also, by the end of this post, more clearly distinguish socialism from capitalism.


There is no doubt that on most economic benchmarks Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) are highly successful. They are up there among the richest 20 nations in the world, their national debt is manageable (not like the Greek socialist state, for instance), and their people even claim to be happy. [True, there is some detail, e.g. huge private debt in Denmark, but I said “most” economic indicators, not “all”].

So what is going on here? Are these guys an example of successful socialist countries, or are the capitalist in some way, or do they follow some other, “third way”?


Levels of freedom





Political rights, 2015, Freedom House





(higher numbers are worse)
Civil liberties, 2015, Freedom House





(higher numbers are worse)
Index of Economic Freedom, Heritage House/ Wall St Journal





global rank
Press freedom, Reporters Without Borders 





global rank
Property rights index102246global rank

Without going into too much detail (there are plenty of other, similar, indicators), this list of indicators shows that unlike India (which is a HARDCORE SOCIALIST, UNFREE SOCIETY), the Scandinavian countries are FREE countries, with the world’s strongest property rights systems. They are fundamentally NOT socialist. Socialist countries DO NOT have economic (or other) freedoms. The whole idea of socialism is for the state to dictate who does what, and to manage the economy centrally.


Does the price system work in these countries? ( they use administered prices, like with socialist India?)

Denmark has a “thoroughly modern market economy” [Source]. “Denmark boasts a modern market economy in which the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system.” [Source]

Market restrictions?

There is no minimum wage in Denmark. [Source]

Labour market flexibilty: In Denmark, the employer’s right to hire and fire their employees whenever they find it necessary is recognised. [Source] This suggests labour market flexibillity at a level that is totally unheard of in any socialist (or even most capitalist) society.

Trade policy?

Denmark advocates free trade [Source]. “All Nordic countries have a commitment to free trade” [Source].  The Economist describes these as  “stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies”  [Source]


These countries had a period of greater state intervention in the society, but have become market oriented at a level not heard of in most parts of the West.

In the 1970s and 1980s the Nordics were indeed tax-and-spend countries. Sweden’s public spending reached 67% of GDP in 1993. Astrid Lindgren, the inventor of Pippi Longstocking, was forced to pay more than 100% of her income in taxes. But tax-and-spend did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth-richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th in 1993.

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

Private management of public hospitals and schools

An example of their private orientation is their operation of schools and hospitals.

Denmark and Norway allow private firms to run public hospitals. Sweden has a universal system of school vouchers, with private for-profit schools competing with public schools. Denmark also has vouchers—but ones that you can top up. When it comes to choice, Milton Friedman would be more at home in Stockholm than in Washington, DC. [Source]


This doesn’t mean that these are free societies in every respect. They have a strong egalitarian focus, implemented through redistribution. This welfare system has led to some rather extreme negative consequences, as outlined in Manipulism and the Weapon of Guilt: Collectivism Exposed by Mikkel Clair Nissen. I’ve provided key extracts from this book here.

I won’t go into details of this, but it is clear that the welfare state is both unsustainable and harmful to human motivation and dignity. There is no doubt that these states will pull back on the excesses of their welfare state as people realise it is not going to work. There is no free lunch. The sooner these countries understand that, the better for them. While they may not go down the path of failed states like Greece, they will face increasing challenges in maintaining their standards of living if their most productive people start working less (or migrate to other, less taxing countries).


So what are we to make of this?

Well, to understand this, we need to go back to the two fundamental theorems of economics.

First you must recognise that free markets ALWAYS work best. That’s what the first theorem states. The market ALWAYS creates the most efficient allocation and thereby maximises wealth. Once that has been achieved, you can, if you so wish, transfer funds to meet your egalitarian objectives. You can redistribute “endowments” to create any pareto optimal outcome you wish, through the market. That’s the second theorem.

All economics graduates are taught these basic theorems early in their graduate year. These theorems take tens of pages of non-trivial formal proofs. Kanishka, you perhaps learnt these theorems, as well, didn’t you? (Or does ISB not teach theoretical economics?). 

But note clearly that reallocation as part of a welfare state is NOT socialism. It is redistribution within capitalism. Socialism involves denial of property rights, denial of the price system, denial of free trade. Clearly the Scandinavian countries are extreme-CAPITALIST societies on these indicators. These capitalist institutional features allow them to generate vast amounts of wealth; which they then redistribute.

The excesses of their welfare state have undoubtedly reduced their potential wealth by harming incentives at two levels: at the top, where high taxes reduce incentives to work; and at the bottom, where excessive welfare reduces incentives to work. The documentation of the adverse effects of welfare makes clear that the welfare system is NOT a good idea and should be curtailed.

However, it is fundamentally incorrect to talk of Scandinavian countries as being socialist.

Yes, in casual talk, even I refer to excesses of welfare state as socialism, but socialism is actually quite a different beast.

To identify socialism, look at India, Kanishka. Look at PROPERTY RIGHTS. Look at PRICES. Look at LABOUR MARKETS. Look at TRADE.


Debunking Utopia #1: Nordic socialism isn’t the answer for America

Debunking the Myth of Socialist “Success” in Scandinavia

IEA Book (free): Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third-Way Socialism

The economics of freedom: lessons from the Nordic countries

See relevant chapters of this book by Tom Woods.

Some links I had jotted down but forget whether I reviewed as part of writing this blog:


Debunking Utopia #1: Nordic socialism isn’t the answer for America


Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
7 thoughts on “Scandinavian countries are super-capitalist with the terrible baggage of a HUGE welfare state
  1. vishal

    if You will become the Prime minister, what will you do for Indian beggar? (Especially child beggars) How will you support them or leave them alone. A system must support the poorest.

    please answer this question.

  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Beggary is human right – they have a right to beg. No force. Homelessness and beggary happens for many reasons and is unlikely to be eradicated. But through social insurance programs it will reduce.

  3. vishal

    It’s a responsibility of the government to identify them accurately and give them proper education and some financial support (such as food)
    so that they can learn to live with dignity and succeed in their life, I don’t want such government who can’t take care of beggar and can not give them the support and right direction.

  4. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    ONE SINGLE POINT OF consideration for the social minimum. Focus on the basics. Everyone must be covered by people who can work but choose not to, must NOT be covered.

  5. Vishal

    I have to disagree a little bit with you. I do believe in providing direct cash but I also believe in providing food.

    Men in lowest level at Indian society spend all the cash on “alcohol”. They beat Their wife. Play betting games (जुआ) and lose all the money. (such things are very common).

    I would rather provide cash to women’s account.

    Apart from that there is a discrimination between girl child and boy child. Likes its very common Boy get an extra glass of milk 🥛 or if there is not enough or limited money for food, they will always prefer to feed the boy instead of girls.

    they prefer boys. so, I would provide free Food to all the poorest so that girls will be well fed.

    Yes, the following basic is very important and Indian government has failed there for last 75 years.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial