Scandinavian social norms responsible for low poverty, not welfare state

[Axulus]

The descendants of Scandinavian migrants in the US combine the high living standards of the US with the high levels of equality of Scandinavian countries. Median incomes of Scandinavian descendants are 20 per cent higher than average US incomes. It is true that poverty rates in Scandinavian countries are lower than in the US. However, the poverty rate among descendants of Nordic immigrants in the US today is half the average poverty rate of Americans – this has been a consistent finding for decades. In fact, Scandinavian Americans have lower poverty rates than Scandinavian citizens who have not emigrated. This suggests that pre-existing cultural norms are responsible for the low levels of poverty among Scandinavians rather than Nordic welfare states.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sanandajinima-interactive.pdf

 

[bilby]

The descendants of Scandinavian migrants in the US combine the high living standards of the US with the high levels of equality of Scandinavian countries. Median incomes of Scandinavian descendants are 20 per cent higher than average US incomes. It is true that poverty rates in Scandinavian countries are lower than in the US. However, the poverty rate among descendants of Nordic immigrants in the US today is half the average poverty rate of Americans – this has been a consistent finding for decades. In fact, Scandinavian Americans have lower poverty rates than Scandinavian citizens who have not emigrated. This suggests that pre-existing cultural norms are responsible for the low levels of poverty among Scandinavians rather than Nordic welfare states.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sanandajinima-interactive.pdf

This appears to be yet another demonstration that something the left wing are not actually saying is wrong, and that therefore the left wing is wrong.

The paper is attempting to rebut the claim that Scandinavian living standards are high because they have a large welfare state. That is a distortion of the left wing position. The right wing position is that, although it is unarguable that individual benefit recipients are better off in the short term due to the state provision of generous tax-funded benefits, there is a long term harm to the economy as a whole which more than offsets this benefit. The left wing rebuttal of this position is that Scandinavian countries provide such benefits without suffering the predicted long term and/or systemic harm. To attempt to counter that rebuttal by saying 'But Scandinavians in the US are generally better off too' is to defeat a strawman.

Regardless of the levels of poverty in Scandinavians, whether in the USA or in Scandinavia, it is unarguably true that giving money to poor people will alleviate their poverty, at least in the immediate term. The welfare state has a clear benefit; to rationally oppose it, you need to show that it also causes harm, and that the harm caused outweighs the benefits. This paper does not even address that question. It presents a strong argument for adopting Scandinavian modes of thought and behaviour; it does not present any argument at all as to the overall net effect on non-economic well being of all of the various benefits or harms that result from a welfare state.

Your headline should simply read "Scandinavian social norms help to reduce poverty". The article doesn't present a single shred of evidence for or against the overall value of a welfare state (despite the authors claims to the contrary); The author simply presents his belief that the 'economic rules' apply to Scandinavia, and that things would therefore be even better in that part of the world without the 'large government' policies that those nations have pursued. In doing so, he begs the question - his definition of 'even better' is based on economic measures, and not on the measures (such as the OECD 'Better Life index') that he uses to establish his position.

It is probably true that GDP per capita; unemployment rates; interest rates and other aggregated economic indicators could be improved in Scandinavia by moving towards a 'small government' model; but this does not imply that such economic improvements would not lead to offsetting reductions in the non-economic components of what makes people happy.

Being rich is a good start on the road to happiness; but as the chart on page 3 of the paper shows, it's not everything - there are six countries that rank higher than the US on that table, and all of them are poorer than the US in purely economic terms.

Poverty vs wealth is not the only important issue; financial security is a vitally important element of happiness. Having a well paid job is great; but having a slightly smaller income is an acceptable price to pay for the certainty that, if your job disappears (or your ability to do it disappears, for example due to ill-health), your income will not fall so far as to completely destroy your life.

Welfare states are good for poor people; they are possibly bad for 'economies' (depending on how you define an 'economy'); they are undeniably bad for the (relatively) wealthy people who must fund them; and the overall result - whether they make people, in general, happier - is not directly addressed by the linked article. That at least six such states do better than the wealthiest nation on Earth even by the standards espoused in the article - which is clearly intended to give the opposite impression - strongly suggests that the overall result is better with a strong welfare safety net.

To anyone who has lived in fear of losing their job, (or indeed to anyone who understands the cliché that money isn't everything), that shouldn't come as a big surprise.

 

[Toni]

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sanandajinima-interactive.pdf

This appears to be yet another demonstration that something the left wing are not actually saying is wrong, and that therefore the left wing is wrong.

The paper is attempting to rebut the claim that Scandinavian living standards are high because they have a large welfare state. That is a distortion of the left wing position. The right wing position is that, although it is unarguable that individual benefit recipients are better off in the short term due to the state provision of generous tax-funded benefits, there is a long term harm to the economy as a whole which more than offsets this benefit. The left wing rebuttal of this position is that Scandinavian countries provide such benefits without suffering the predicted long term and/or systemic harm. To attempt to counter that rebuttal by saying 'But Scandinavians in the US are generally better off too' is to defeat a strawman.

Regardless of the levels of poverty in Scandinavians, whether in the USA or in Scandinavia, it is unarguably true that giving money to poor people will alleviate their poverty, at least in the immediate term. The welfare state has a clear benefit; to rationally oppose it, you need to show that it also causes harm, and that the harm caused outweighs the benefits. This paper does not even address that question. It presents a strong argument for adopting Scandinavian modes of thought and behaviour; it does not present any argument at all as to the overall net effect on non-economic well being of all of the various benefits or harms that result from a welfare state.

Your headline should simply read "Scandinavian social norms help to reduce poverty". The article doesn't present a single shred of evidence for or against the overall value of a welfare state (despite the authors claims to the contrary); The author simply presents his belief that the 'economic rules' apply to Scandinavia, and that things would therefore be even better in that part of the world without the 'large government' policies that those nations have pursued. In doing so, he begs the question - his definition of 'even better' is based on economic measures, and not on the measures (such as the OECD 'Better Life index') that he uses to establish his position.

It is probably true that GDP per capita; unemployment rates; interest rates and other aggregated economic indicators could be improved in Scandinavia by moving towards a 'small government' model; but this does not imply that such economic improvements would not lead to offsetting reductions in the non-economic components of what makes people happy.

Being rich is a good start on the road to happiness; but as the chart on page 3 of the paper shows, it's not everything - there are six countries that rank higher than the US on that table, and all of them are poorer than the US in purely economic terms.

Poverty vs wealth is not the only important issue; financial security is a vitally important element of happiness. Having a well paid job is great; but having a slightly smaller income is an acceptable price to pay for the certainty that, if your job disappears (or your ability to do it disappears, for example due to ill-health), your income will not fall so far as to completely destroy your life.

Welfare states are good for poor people; they are possibly bad for 'economies' (depending on how you define an 'economy'); they are undeniably bad for the (relatively) wealthy people who must fund them; and the overall result - whether they make people, in general, happier - is not directly addressed by the linked article. That at least six such states do better than the wealthiest nation on Earth even by the standards espoused in the article - which is clearly intended to give the opposite impression - strongly suggests that the overall result is better with a strong welfare safety net.

To anyone who has lived in fear of losing their job, (or indeed to anyone who understands the cliché that money isn't everything), that shouldn't come as a big surprise.

Actually, it's the blonde hair and blue eyes and athletic physique (but not too athletic. nothing actually primitive.) that account for lower poverty in Scandinavia.

D'oh!

 

[Juma]

<-->

 

[Juma]

Median incomes of Scandinavian descendants are 20 per cent higher than average US incomes.

And how is it when compared to the rest of the white population of US?

 

[Axulus]

Median incomes of Scandinavian descendants are 20 per cent higher than average US incomes.

And how is it when compared to the rest of the white population of US?

From the link in the OP:

According to the 2010 US Census, the median
household income in the United States is $51,914. This can
be compared with a median household income of $61,920
for Danish Americans, $59,379 for Finnish-Americans,
$60,935 for Norwegian Americans and $61,549 for Swedish
Americans. There is also a group identifying themselves
simply as ‘Scandinavian Americans’ in the US Census. The
median household income for this group is even higher at
$66,219 (US Census database).

In 2010, white Americans had median household incomes of $51,846:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf

All races median was $49,445

There is a slight discrepancy, but we can see that white median should be adjusted up by about about $2,400 (or close to 4.8% more). Therefore, add $2,400 to the $51,914 used from the book and we get $54,314 for white median using book data.

 

[Togo]

Surely a desire to support the unemployed is a Scandinavian social norm?

 

[Sarpedon]

As an inhabitant of a state largely settled by Scandinavians, and indeed having such immigrants in my background, I am familiar with some of the circumstances relating the immigration.

At the time of the immigration of Scandinavian immigrants, Sweden had one of the highest poverty levels in Europe. Many Swedish immigrants to the US didn't speak swedish at home, wishing to forget the dire poverty of their homeland and discard their past and upbringing.

If low poverty derives from Swedish cultural norms that existed BEFORE immigration, why immigrate at all? Why was Sweden not then as prosperous as today? How Sweden transformed its economy and national character in the early twentieth century is well documented, and I see no reason to cite it here. Likewise, there is no secret to the better government of northern midwestern states where Scandinavians tended to settle and their southern counterparts.

I utterly reject this border line racist attempt to appropriate my cultural heritage to serve some dubious right wing political goal.

 

[Axulus]

As an inhabitant of a state largely settled by Scandinavians, and indeed having such immigrants in my background, I am familiar with some of the circumstances relating the immigration.

At the time of the immigration of Scandinavian immigrants, Sweden had one of the highest poverty levels in Europe. Many Swedish immigrants to the US didn't speak swedish at home, wishing to forget the dire poverty of their homeland and discard their past and upbringing.

If low poverty derives from Swedish cultural norms that existed BEFORE immigration, why immigrate at all? Why was Sweden not then as prosperous as today? How Sweden transformed its economy and national character in the early twentieth century is well documented, and I see no reason to cite it here. Likewise, there is no secret to the better government of northern midwestern states where Scandinavians tended to settle and their southern counterparts.

I utterly reject this border line racist attempt to appropriate my cultural heritage to serve some dubious right wing political goal.

No one is claiming cultural norms are the _only_ factor in determining poverty. Positive cultural norms combined with good institutions are required to achieve prosperity.

From the book:

Denmark’s closest neighbour to the north was more of
a late-bloomer. However, few other nations have demonstrated
as clearly as Sweden the phenomenal economic
growth that comes from adopting free-market policies.
Sweden was a poor nation before the 1870s, resulting
in massive emigration to the US. As a capitalist system
evolved out of the agrarian society, the country grew richer.
Property rights, free markets and the rule of law combined
with large numbers of well-educated engineers and entrepreneurs.
These factors created an environment in which
Sweden enjoyed an unprecedented period of sustained and
rapid economic development.
In the hundred years following the market liberalisation
of the late 19th century and the onset of industrialisation,
Sweden experienced phenomenal economic growth (Maddison
1982). Famous Swedish companies such as IKEA, Volvo,
Tetra Pak, H&M, Ericsson and Alfa Laval were all founded
during this period, and were aided by business-friendly economic
policies and low taxes (Sanandaji 2010b).
It is sometimes claimed that Sweden’s high growth rate
is a result of social democratic policies. In fact, much of the
development occurred between the time when free markets
developed (circa 1870) and the start of the era dominated
by social democratic rule (circa 1936). Economic historian
Angus Maddison’s database of estimated historic
per capita GDP makes it possible to calculate growth rates
for 28 OECD countries (Maddison 2010).

Between 1870 and 1936, Sweden enjoyed the highest
growth rate in the industrialised world. However, between
1936 and 2008, the growth rate was only 13th out
of 28 industrialised nations.1
It is important to realise that
Sweden remained a relatively free-market-oriented nation
for several decades after the beginning of the social democratic
era. The policy shift occurred slowly over time. It
was at the beginning of the 1970s when the fiscal burden
and government spending in Sweden reached high levels
relative to other industrialised countries.

Figure 1 shows the economic development between
1870 and 1970 in Sweden and other comparable western
European countries. During this 100-year period, Sweden
was characterised by small-government policies.
The country was also neutral in both world wars, avoiding
much of the destruction that occurred elsewhere in
Europe. This, alongside a catch-up effect, can explain why
living standards in Sweden rose three times as rapidly as
in the UK. In 1870 Sweden’s GDP per capita was 57 per
cent lower than in the UK. In 1970 it had risen to become
21 per cent higher.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sanandajinima-interactive.pdf

 

[Sarpedon]

Yeah, so where do these 'pre existing cultural norms' come in?

You basically provided the evidence for my point I was too lazy to find. Thanks.

Now, where's the evidence for the superior nordic cultural norms? It looks to me like a coincidence: there's no causal link between the reforms undertaken by Sweden after the emmigration, and the relative prosperity of States like Minnesota, heavily inhabited by Swedes. Each seems to have its own discrete and identifiable cause.

 

[PyramidHead]

No one is claiming cultural norms are the _only_ factor in determining poverty. Positive cultural norms combined with good institutions are required to achieve prosperity.

The title of your OP specifically says "not welfare state." Or is the welfare state not one of the "good institutions" you are talking about here?

 

[ksen]

Sweden can successfully fight poverty because they don't have troublesome black people meme spotted itt.

 

[Toni]

Sweden can successfully fight poverty because they don't have troublesome black people meme spotted itt.

God knows that Americans of scandinavian descent certainly aren't benefiting from their obvious white skin!

 

[ronburgundy]

Pure pseudo-science religion. Note this is not a peer reviewed paper, but rather a book published by a very explicitly right-wing think-tank organization called the Institute of Economic Affairs, who say on their webpage "all those associated with the Institute support free markets" and "Those promoting the IEA’s mission believe that society's problems and challenges are best dealt with by individuals, companies and voluntary associations interacting with each other freely without interference from politicians and the state."

As to the claim that "social norms" and not welfare states are responsible for low poverty rates in Nordic countries, it is based upon comparing the income of the tiny non-representative subset of people who leave those countries and come to the US to the general US population and to the non-emigrators back in their home nations. What part of the concept of selection-bias and non-comparable sub-samples does this clown not grasp. The words "selection", "bias", "sample", "confound", and "representative" appear nowhere in the entire paper. He fails to even attempt to account for the countless ways in which these sub-groups are likely to differ from each other which could account for why Scandinavian-Americans are better off than either other Americans or than Scandinavians.

Axulus, since you present this here as though it is valid, can you direct us to the author's analysis of empirical data that controls for all the confounding factors and validates his and your causal inference?

 

[Axulus]

No one is claiming cultural norms are the _only_ factor in determining poverty. Positive cultural norms combined with good institutions are required to achieve prosperity.

The title of your OP specifically says "not welfare state." Or is the welfare state not one of the "good institutions" you are talking about here?

Since poverty among Scandanvian decendents in the US is equal or lower than those in Scandanavia, Scandanavian style welfare state isn't required to acheive such low levels of poverty (unless you consider the US a Scandanavian style welfare state).

 

[ronburgundy]

The title of your OP specifically says "not welfare state." Or is the welfare state not one of the "good institutions" you are talking about here?

Since poverty among Scandanvian decendents in the US is equal or lower than those in Scandanavia, Scandanavian style welfare state isn't required to acheive such low levels of poverty (unless you consider the US a Scandanavian style welfare state).

Completely invalid inference that in no way follows from the premise. To reach this conclusion you must make another completely unsupported and almost certainly false assumption that the tiny sub-sample of Scandanavian-Americans and Scandavians as a whole are identical in every single aspect of their ideas, knowledge, reasoning capacity, goals, emotions, personality, and biology that could have any impact (no matter how indirect) upon their distribution of income relative to the poverty level.

See my above post for more on why this paper and all your claims related to it are pure pseudo-science.

 

[Axulus]

Since poverty among Scandanvian decendents in the US is equal or lower than those in Scandanavia, Scandanavian style welfare state isn't required to acheive such low levels of poverty (unless you consider the US a Scandanavian style welfare state).

Completely invalid inference that in no way follows from the premise. To reach this conclusion you must make another completely unsupported and almost certainly false assumption that the tiny sub-sample of Scandanavian-Americans and Scandavians as a whole are identical in every single aspect of their ideas, knowledge, reasoning capacity, goals, emotions, personality, and biology that could have any impact (no matter how indirect) upon their distribution of income relative to the poverty level.

See my above post for more on why this paper and all your claims related to it are pure pseudo-science.

You are actually making my point and you don't even realize it. It's the left that claims the low levels of poverty in Scandanavia are an acheivement of the welfare state. Yet they compare their rates of poverty to other countries as if the two populations are identical in every way.

At least this comparison between these two groups is much closer to what the left compares to.

Furthermore, the argument of the right is that individual characteristics are an important part of staying out of poverty. The very characteristics which you describe to claim the populations are not identical.

 

[PyramidHead]

The title of your OP specifically says "not welfare state." Or is the welfare state not one of the "good institutions" you are talking about here?

Since poverty among Scandanvian decendents in the US is equal or lower than those in Scandanavia, Scandanavian style welfare state isn't required to acheive such low levels of poverty (unless you consider the US a Scandanavian style welfare state).

Then what did you mean by "good institutions are required to achieve prosperity"?

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh, how do I know whether my incredible affluence is the result of my English half or my Scandinavian half?

 

[fromderinside]

Isn't anybody going to mention that economic status is not the goal of government nor is economic status a gauge of social value. There are so many straw-men and counter straw-men floating around this thread I'm amazed people aren't being asked to learn to straw-swim. Obviously northern European economic tendencies are much more aligned with wealth accumulation. So f-ing what? Scandinavians - I'm one - don't seem to be very happy or well adjusted unless one believes Jungian attributes are desirable. ...and Jews are still smarter!!!

Sarpendon, it depends on whether you raised as a Lutheran or a Presbyterian doesn't it.