Dreamworld or Dystopia? The Nordic Model and Its Influence in the 21st Century

For nearly a century outsiders have remarked the interesting developments in the Nordic countries. Norway, Finland, and Iceland achieved full independence early in the twentieth century. All five countries became parliamentary democracies, but what foreign journalists, scholars, and politicians noticed was their generally successful responses to the challenges of modernity. All but Finland had avoided World War I and had introduced democratic government and universal suffrage without significant violence. Finland broke free of the collapsing Russian Empire in 1917, but suffered a short but bloody civil war. Iceland had progressed from Danish possession to full independence between 1872 and 1944. By the 1920s democratic government prevailed, but was challenged by significant economic and social conflicts. The Scandinavian or Nordic Model emerged as a concept during the interwar period as economic depression and anti-democratic politics threatened Europe and the United States. Its reforms have attracted much attention, not least in the United States. Michael A. Livingston is among the latest to describe and analyze the model, its characteristics, and evolution. Over the past decade the region has again drawn renewed attention. For the progressive Left it contains many attractive characteristics: low inequality, affluence, vibrant culture, and democratic politics with a focus on human rights—a utopia. For many on the nationalist Right, the Nordic countries are remnants of a century of democratic socialism with a heavy price in freedom, productivity, and morality—a dystopia to be avoided.American journalist Marquis Childs’s enthusiastic description in Sweden: The Middle Way, published in 1936, was a bestseller and also read by New Dealers. While Childs did not accurately portray some of the Swedish innovations, his example suggested a “middle way” between Soviet communism and ruthless capitalism (with its fascistic tendencies). The concept spread to all of Scandinavia as elaborated by Childs’s 1947 and 1980 revisions and the more detailed but equally positive survey in 1955 by William L. Shirer’s The Challenge of Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland in Our Time. Livingston’s concise volume is in part a response to a new wave of mainly nonacademic books on individual Nordic countries or the region as a whole.As Livingston cleverly suggests, for every “Utopia” there soon emerges a “Dystopia”; this is cleverly named a “Newton-More law” (as in Isaac and Thomas) (46). Negative portrayals of the Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, were increasingly common in response to Childs’s and other positive descriptions. Criticism of Scandinavian socialism, neutrality, and the welfare state has filled conservative publications. Even President Eisenhower made a thinly veiled insult in 1960 for which he later apologized (16, 47). A supreme example—not mentioned here—was the lengthy but biased 2018 report by Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers attacking the Scandinavian “socialistic” welfare state. Its true target was the American progressive Left and “Democratic Socialism.” Livingston adopts the “Nordic Model” as the summary of the countries’ qualities and achievements as well as shortcomings. The geographic term Nordic is more common in the region as it includes Finland and Iceland as well as the three kingdoms. Always careful to distinguish between the five lands, Livingston makes a strong case for a broad Nordic Model that the regional Nordic Council based on five elements: trust, innovation, sustainability and the environment, compassion, egalitarianism, and tolerance and openness, and freedom of expression (25–26). Numerous examples of Nordic achievement bolster the model, including familiar firms such as Lego, IKEA, and Skype as well as Nordic achievements in film, music, cuisine, and both popular (“Nordic Noir”) and higher literature (27–38).Chapter 3 summarizes the dystopian critique from domestic and foreign sources. High taxes, overregulation, rising crime, and terrorism are recurring criticisms from the mainly foreign Right. Domestic critics lament excessive immigration (particularly from non-Western countries) and naive multiculturalism, which has stalled integration (46). Even feminism and sexual liberalization has attracted criticism (49). While some of this remains dystopian political rhetoric, such as former President Trump’s 2017 diatribe against Sweden, the Nordic Model has faced serious challenges of late. Nordic politics has seen a significant rise in populist parties over recent decades. Interestingly these parties usually accept the panoply of welfare state policies that foreigners often praise, but focus on ethnic and cultural issues closely tied to immigration (52). The postcommunist Left attacks rising inequality and economic and environmental policies (53–55).Having described the praises and criticisms of the Nordic Model, Livingston focuses on three main issue areas in chapters 4, 5, and 6. These chapters put some “meat on the bone” of how the Nordic Model has developed in recent years. Chapter 4 considers human rights, for which the Nordic countries have been strong advocates. Livingston suggests that, in part, this is in response to the mixed experience during and immediately after World War II. Swedish neutrality and Finnish alliance with Germany forced not only compromises but also opportunities for Danish and Norwegian Jews, as well as resistance fighters to escape the Nazis. Livingston should have noted the forerunner of norm advocacy in the post–World War I actions of Fridtjof Nansen, the Norwegian scientist, explorer, and humanitarian. The Nobel Peace Prize has also promoted humanitarian concerns for over a century. The chapter details Nordic issues of gender equality and feminism, which have been high on the political and social agenda for more than fifty years. Access to higher education, professional vocations, and supportive family leave are among the notable achievements. Women have held almost every high position in public life despite lagging in top private executive business roles (76–78).Livingston devotes considerable attention to the situation of religious minorities in the Nordic countries, given their history of state churches and ethnic homogeneity. Muslim immigrants face both ethnic and religious prejudice, as do the region’s small Jewish community. Jews have enjoyed increasing tolerance and social acceptance over the past two centuries. This was interrupted by the Nazi German occupation of Denmark and Norway (1940–45), with the successful rescue of nearly all Danish Jews in 1943 but less success for Norwegian Jews (86–88). More recently relations with Israel and the immigration of large numbers of Muslims have clouded the picture. Ties between Scandinavia and Israel have been close, but challenged by the recurring hostility in the region. This has spilled back into domestic issues given the large Muslim migration and led to occasional violence and terrorism, especially in Sweden (87). The Nordic Model has certainly drawn inspiration from the region’s Lutheran past, but today they are among the most secular Western societies.Environmentalism seems to be a partial replacement for traditional religion and spiritualism as discussed in chapter 5. The Nordic Model includes ambitious environmental goals but confronts conflicting interests. Norway is a major petroleum producer and has enjoyed impressive economic advantages. Denmark is a minor petroleum source and has been a leader in alternative energy principally from wind. Sweden has had a recurring debate about nuclear power, but has historically been the most industrialized economy. All of the countries have implemented strict environmental protection policies, including various excise taxes on carbon. Colorful personalities such as youthful climate activist Greta Thunberg have attracted global attention but less substantive responses (94). Although the Nordic countries deserve credit for confronting environmental and climate issues more directly than most, affluent, cosmopolitan societies inevitably create tensions between proclaimed goals and important interests (97, 104).Chapter 6, on “Innovation,” is an eclectic collection of topics including Nordic achievements in science, culture, and education (with important differences among the five nations). Comparisons with the millions of Americans of Scandinavian immigrant background are interesting because their attitudes increasingly differ from their relatives who remained behind. The emigrants have done well but have generally remained more religious and become more conservative than contemporary Scandinavians (122–23). They have kept emotional and cultural ties with the homeland as witnessed by numerous museums, cultural centers, and festivals. Oddly, Livingston neglects to mention the American Scandinavian Foundation (based in New York City), which has promoted US-Nordic relations, exchanges, and culture for more than a century. Finally the discussion moves to coffee, a drink much loved throughout the Nordic countries, but also popular in the United States and most of Europe. The coffee culture is complex, reflecting Nordic global trade but also the once strong temperance movement (in common with the United States). Enthusiasm for good coffee (fair-traded and sustainably grown) is not particularly Nordic, but the recent emergence of gourmet coffee (at nearly US$20 a cup) is amusing.In his concluding chapter 7, Livingston explains why the Nordic Model is not a utopia, but is a laboratory of social, cultural, and economic innovation worthy of serious outside attention. Few of its components are likely to be “imported” into either Trump’s America or Brexit’s Britain, but for more progressive or even moderate folks, it does give inspiration. As the British social historian R. H. Tawney observed a century ago, where a society is may be less important than the direction to which it strives. Although relatively small and unique, the Nordic countries continue to suggest many ways in which modern democracies can be maintained and improved. Utopia may thus be more the pursuit of the “better” than the defense of the “best.”