The New York Times Discovers Sweden
The Times had an article this morning that reports on Sweden’s success in sustaining healthy rates of economic growth, while also ensuring a high degree of economic security for its workforce. The article is mostly fair, but is misleading on a few points.
For example, the article reports that Sweden overhauled its Social Security system in the mid-nineties and added private accounts. This is true, but it would have been helpful to add that the defined benefit portion of Sweden’s system is still approximately one-third larger (relative to wages) than the current U.S. system.
The article also reports a common complaint that the official unemployment rate of 4.8 percent substantially understates true unemployment because it excludes the people in government retraining programs. (The article reports that labor unions put the true rate at 8 percent. Labor unions rarely appear as a source for economic data in Times articles.) It is not clear why workers in government funded training programs should be counted among the unemployed. Would it be appropriate to count workers in companies receiving tax breaks as unemployed?
In its discussion of unemployment the article also adds that, “according to some estimates, Swedes take an average of 17 weeks a year off from work on sick, disability or parental leave, further twisting the statistics. Absenteeism is the highest in the developed world.” Presumably, these comments are intended to imply that the unemployment rate is actually worse than the official numbers indicate, but it is hard to follow the logic here. Other things equal, aren’t people better off if they get long vacations and can take sick days without worrying about losing their jobs. (I said “other things equal” – so we’re assuming this doesn’t affect productivity, economic growth, etc.)
It may have been appropriate to mention in this context that the employment rate (the share of the working age population that is employed) is approximately 2 percentage points higher in Sweden than in the United States.
The article concludes with the obligatory warning that Sweden and the other Nordic success stories are unique, “And in this debate, size, geography and history do matter. Sweden has been free of war for 200 years. Norway, with 4.6 million people, is rich in oil but fiscally cautious. The economy in Finland, with some 5.2 million people, revolves around the fortunes of the cellphone giant Nokia.
Also, the Nordic countries tend toward the individualism of seafaring lands whose past spanned trade and conquest. Only Finland, the lone republic among the Scandinavian monarchies, joined the euro common currency, and Norway has rejected membership in the European Union altogether.”
In other words, don’t try these policies at home.
For example, the article reports that Sweden overhauled its Social Security system in the mid-nineties and added private accounts. This is true, but it would have been helpful to add that the defined benefit portion of Sweden’s system is still approximately one-third larger (relative to wages) than the current U.S. system.
The article also reports a common complaint that the official unemployment rate of 4.8 percent substantially understates true unemployment because it excludes the people in government retraining programs. (The article reports that labor unions put the true rate at 8 percent. Labor unions rarely appear as a source for economic data in Times articles.) It is not clear why workers in government funded training programs should be counted among the unemployed. Would it be appropriate to count workers in companies receiving tax breaks as unemployed?
In its discussion of unemployment the article also adds that, “according to some estimates, Swedes take an average of 17 weeks a year off from work on sick, disability or parental leave, further twisting the statistics. Absenteeism is the highest in the developed world.” Presumably, these comments are intended to imply that the unemployment rate is actually worse than the official numbers indicate, but it is hard to follow the logic here. Other things equal, aren’t people better off if they get long vacations and can take sick days without worrying about losing their jobs. (I said “other things equal” – so we’re assuming this doesn’t affect productivity, economic growth, etc.)
It may have been appropriate to mention in this context that the employment rate (the share of the working age population that is employed) is approximately 2 percentage points higher in Sweden than in the United States.
The article concludes with the obligatory warning that Sweden and the other Nordic success stories are unique, “And in this debate, size, geography and history do matter. Sweden has been free of war for 200 years. Norway, with 4.6 million people, is rich in oil but fiscally cautious. The economy in Finland, with some 5.2 million people, revolves around the fortunes of the cellphone giant Nokia.
Also, the Nordic countries tend toward the individualism of seafaring lands whose past spanned trade and conquest. Only Finland, the lone republic among the Scandinavian monarchies, joined the euro common currency, and Norway has rejected membership in the European Union altogether.”
In other words, don’t try these policies at home.


12 Comments:
At 8:07 AM,
Finnsense said…
The Nordic success stories are unique but what is odd is that five countries that share a very similar outlook and social security system, have all succeeded yet in different ways?
In other words, it would be interesting to know what would be the situation now if Norway had no oil, Sweden had been involved in wars, Nokia had stuck to making tyres and so on. Obviously Norway is dependent on oil because they have lots of it but that said, they produce it more efficiently than any other oil producing nation. Finland was also doing very well before mobile phones but their market collapsed with the USSR.
In short, I don't think it's fair to dismiss the success of the Nordics simply because they each have their own story.
At 8:49 AM,
Erik L said…
If the training programs are just a temporary place to put workers while they are unemployed then it seems legitimate to count them as unemployed for some debate purposes. On the other hand if these programs tend to function as training programs, i.e. the people in them are tarining for new jobs and tend to get those jobs pretty soon after the training, then it seems less fair to count them as unemployed.
Also, another factor mentioned in an article in "The Economist" a year or two ago, was the uniformity of the population in scandanavian countries (I mean as a reason why there generous welfoare states seem to work). The NYT is too PC to bring up that idea, I guess.
At 9:44 AM,
Peter Schledorn said…
Assuming these training programs are full-time, why would we want to count the people in them as unemployed? We don't count students as unemployed in the US. They won't actively be in the labor market until they finish the programs.
At 10:42 AM,
Finnsense said…
"the uniformity of the population in scandanavian countries"
People forget that the percentage of people in Sweden who were not born there is about the same as the US.
At 11:58 AM,
adam said…
Is that true, Finnsense? Cool. People from across the spectrum speak of the relative lack of ethnic diversity in the Scandinavian countries, but I never actually looked at the numbers. Jeffrey Sachs, for example, had an article in Project Syndicate recently that argued that since the Nordic model hasn't been bad for economic growth, it's a matter of temperament and tolerance, not economics, that prevents the Nordic version of social democracy from emerging here.
I should have looked. I've been to Sweden before, to the non-major city of Umea, and there was plenty of diversity there, I thought, so it shouldn't surprise me.
At 1:05 PM,
Anonymous said…
Why not just look north to Canada? We have had balanced budgets for 8 years running. Our unemployment rate, once you account for measurement differences, is pretty close to the US. Our labour participation rate is higher then the US. We have higher minimum wage, and better a social safety net generally. Health care is universal, has better aggregate outcomes and costs 10% of GDP vs 15% of GDP in the US. Oh yea, and our Canada Pension Plan is acturally solid for at least 75 years.
At 1:14 PM,
Anonymous said…
The above should read "actuarially sound".
At 4:56 PM,
Paul said…
I had a flash of frustration over the bias in this article when I read it in the paper this morning and thought, "I wonder what Dean Baker would have to say about this..." Pretty much exactly what I thought he would say, it turns out. Thanks, Dean!
At 10:29 PM,
Anonymous said…
Why not just look north to Canada?
When you look at it, one should also get a glimpse of a GDP/capita that is about 20% lower than the U.S.
Canada $33,000
US $42,000
At 1:12 PM,
vtconomist said…
anon,
GDP per capita isn't everything. Quality of life for everyone, not just the rich, is important in comparing the relative successes of governments.
At 2:30 PM,
Anonymous said…
I won't quibble too much about the per capita GDP stats -- I think based on purchasing power parities Canadian GDP is about 80% of the US. However, wealth in Canada is somewhat more equally spread. If you look at median household income as opposed to average (mean) , the differences between Canada & the US are quite small (sorry that I don't have a link handy).
At 1:46 AM,
la said…
My grandfather was Danish, my great grandparents Swedish. My husband's relatives are Norweigan. I went to visit Norway last summer and it was fantastic.
I hear they have falling populations of young people, I wonder if they would let us back in?
I am just about ready to get the hell out of Dodge.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home