Nils-Göran Areskoug, Stockholm 5 April 2013
WILL THE NORDIC SUPERMODEL EVOLVE INTO A
UNION?
A COUNTERPOINT on “The next supermodel“ (The
Economist, Special report: The Nordic countries, print edition Febr 2, 2013)
PRELUDE
How does our country fare, to be honest? What about our Nordic neighbors?
Obviously, in view of the unraveling crisis in Southern Europe and in the EU
system, it is no surprise that the relative wealth and stability in Sweden and
the Nordic countries attract global attention. But is it really true that our
country is a fairytale? How do we as insiders relate to the rosy picture painted
by one of the most influential weekly economic magazines? Have we as Swedes
(perhaps descending from the Viking on the cover image of the issue, with horns
and paraphernalia) earned their praise or should we remain modest and skeptical,
devoting ourselves to the unrelenting work of improving our society, openly and
honestly diagnosing its failures in an effort to finding efficient remedies for
the future and for next generation?
After an email conversation with academic
friends in the US, UK and in Canada (who are granted anonymity but thankfully
honored) I tried to help my friends by answering their inquiry post reading the
Economist laudation, eager to protect them from the sudden shock and
disappointment they would all suffer should they prematurely decide to invade
our country, blaming misrepresentations of the article under scrutiny.
The Nordic reader is strongly advised to
study the articles in The Economist (online:http://www.economist.com/printedition/2013-02-02) or visit a nearby library.
Below is a conversation between the
outside and inside perspectives.
THEMES
Should we all move to Sweden? Sweden’s consensus model evolved at a
time when survival in a demanding climate forced collaboration across social
strata. Eventually a unique model of negotiation created an employment market on
the basis of shared long-term interest among all parties (“Saltjsöbadsandan”,
since 1938). Government confined its role to monitoring and facilitating the
process until consensus between employers and employees was reached. The
strength of the model was the resulting sustainability - in the long run in the
best interest of the country, shared by virtually everyone. The challenge was
limited to prolonging the horizon among negotiators. But today the challenge of
immigration flows is different. The road to consensus is not so straight when
ideals diverge. Until the country comes up with an updated model for negotiating
divergences, tension is likely to rise and eventually erupt in social clash.
Until then, silent constraints on freedom in this system will not be sufficient
to mobilize the energy needed and incite a momentum of change.
Can we move Sweden to us instead? The consensus model builds on cultural
homogeneity and shared values that are easier to develop in a “regional leader”,
a small to medium size country, than in a major power player on the global arena
(such as US, EU or India). The larger a country is the more likely it is that
other societal forces must be used to keep it together. The “natural democracy”
of Sweden appears as a set of converging social forces all gravitating
concentrically towards consensus: but it does not have merely one shared
end-point of opinion. The model is very likely specific for the Nordic countries
and not easily implantable to other countries with a different history and a
wider span of cultural values. This issue is both a structural and cultural one
and cannot so easily be simplified to a short formula.
What is the difference between Sweden and
the rest of the Nordics? There is an evolving balance of differences and similarities. The
rationale of its system had its ups and downs during centuries. Still, historian
Gunnar Wetterberg envisions a process of integration and believes chances could
improve for a “realistic utopia”, a union between the Nordic countries (“Förbundsstaten
Norden”, The United Nordic Federation, 2010). Education, social systems,
language, history and culture facilitate political convergence among these small
but different economies. To succeed within 20 years such a process would need to
rely on principles of both similarity and complement.
Can the Swedish (Nordic) model be useful
to EU? Sweden and
Switzerland are both successful small countries. But Sweden relies on consensus
whereas in comparison the Swiss embrace more of diversity: Yet, the Swiss have
developed an efficient process of compromising, a widely admired model of direct
democracy. A greater tolerance among the Swiss in allowing “counterpoints”, a
complex web of opinions, may well have made their federation model highly
resilient. In view of this it might seem risky to compress European diversity to
a narrower Swedish consensus. Instead, Brussels should learn the smooth process
of compromise from Bern, not from Stockholm. Should trends one day turn
unfavorable and thwart Nordic export incomes the strength of the Swedish model
may come at the price of a sudden downturn. That is the cost of relying on
global alliances instead of building on the advantages of resilient internal
diversity.
What are the major obstacles risking
future success of the Nordic model?
Leadership: Whether running a global corporation,
leading a government or conducting a five star symphony orchestra--it all takes
the same outstanding quality of leadership to achieve excellence in performance.
Efficiency in the process of value creation, whether private or public, gets
hampered by limited levels of leadership.
Politicization: Soft pressure on academe, commenced by
Social Democrats, did not resolve but accelerated since their era. The
temptation to mainstreaming research could not be resisted. Research was reduced
to an instrument of “consensus making” from the policy toolbox. The trend was
visible in an endless series of duplicative projects adopting the same
unilateral perspective in e.g. gender studies, all converging towards restating
the mean.
Consensus: This kind of policy-making does not
enrich societal dialogue with alternative interpretive perspective but serves
the goals of political elite. Government is appointing rectors of universities
and exerting pressure on key people paralyzed by double loyalties. Friends of
the power elite are readily assigned to leading posts in “political science”. In
such a system of “consensus convergence” debates in key issues quickly become
anemic. The political “friends” are the few and likeminded who willingly
populate the helm of large state funds – a major power source of Swedish
research and development.
Transparency: The recent eruption of a series of
corruption scandals seems to have unraveled only the tip of an iceberg. Bold
journalists penetrated the opaqueness of politicized organizations seemingly
exempt of laws of public transparency (e.g. KKS, SSF, and Tillväxtverket).
Their boards of directors had lavishly spent millions on extravagant festivities
while disregarding needs for reform. A few heads rolled but after few headlines
in the boulevard press the story soon buried in oblivion.
CONCLUSION
Despite all fine differences among the
Nordic countries, the common ground of shared history helped develop these
countries toward incremental implementation of consolidated social values. The
welfare state provides fertile conditions for further integration. The pace of
political integration, however, was soon retarded by a lack of committed vision
among the political elite. This “local friction” is a severe impediment to any
non-governmental initiative. The prevailing perception is an obstacle to any
further effort or commitment. There is a lack of drivers for promoting a
creative cultural dialogue among the Nordic peoples that can nurture valuable
visions for a future unification. Therefore, such a process of integration will
likely remain powerless for long and rely mainly on private and non-profit
efforts. History will determine to what extent such efforts can gain traction.
Change will probably take on true momentum only under severe pressure from a
distressed Europe that appears as a less attractive alternative than a Nordic
Union to be.
© Nils-Göran Areskoug, Stockholm , 27
March 2013.