Talk:Nordic model

Faulty: Ignoring high per-capita petroleum revenue & instead --WITHOUT CITATIONS-- associating econ “performance” with (Nordic Model) policies

• 1/3rd of Norway's government revenue comes from petroleum.
• 1/4th of Norway's GDP comes from petroleum.
• Denmark and Sweden (and Finland) also have high per-capita petroleum revenues...

but, comparing apples to oranges (petrol-states vs. non-), The Nordic Model article states: e.g. #1 "According to the OECD, each year Denmark spends more than 7% of its GDP on education, Sweden 6.5% and Finland 6%, as opposed to 5.5% in United Kingdom..." e.g.#2 "Official poverty risk rate are 9% in Sweden, 10% in Denmark, 11% in Finland, 13% in France and 19% in United Kingdom...”

The point is that the entire article --but especially the "Performance" section of the article-- has the fault of associating glowing economic performance, such as the above examples, with various left AND right-wing policies of Nordic nations, without citing any connection between these policies & the econ growth (e.g. for all we know, the petroleum profits are being offset, not helped by, the welfare-state policy)... whereas in contrast, significant & measurable economic growth is due to the region's high petroleum revenues or other factors: minerals, not policies, causing econ growth.

A section of the article being titled "Performance" implies that the “performance” is due to or otherwise related to the article's topic, The Nordic Model. This is a seriously flawed article until someone provides a credible reference proving that --and to what extent-- this article's topic, "The Nordic Model," is CAUSING --or otherwise HOW it is AFFECTING OR RELEVANT/RELATED TO-- the Nordic economic boom and other 'results' shown in the "Performance" section (and in other sections of the article). "Commonality is not causality" (i.e. post hoc/ad hoc are the fallacies of logic here).

The article never even mentions revenues from the recently-developed oil fields, nor cautions that the petroleum revenues or other factors of spurious correlation even might possibly be causing the good economic "performance" stats (in this case, spurious correlation = any factors besides policy factors, i.e anything besides the policies of “The Nordic Model” and the "unnoticed factor"=petroleum). Instead, we have right-wingers posturing --without adequate citations-- about right-wing policy, and leftists posturing --again without adequate citations-- about leftist policy of The Nordic Model being somehow related to this superior "performance" AND both sides ignoring the real-world data which suggests mineral resources, not policy as a primary cause for the Nordic economic boom.

SUMMARY: All the ideologues, right and left, want their favored ideology to be associated with a rising star, but commonality is not causality and all of the citations in the article -- all six of 'em ;-/ -- seem not to suggest how left-wing/right-wing policies are any sort of major driver that is enriching (or some policies might even be a detriment to...) the Nordic economic ”Performance” (i.e. an economic boom)...as opposed to the evidence that oil money significantly & measurably enriched the Nordics. The cited stats for Norway's GDP & public revenues from petroleum are not nearly the entirety of what should be cited (in the article, as opposed to this more informal Discussion page), but the petroleum & other factors of spurious correlation should be noted, not only what promotes (promotion-by-association, the opposite of guilt by association...yet another logical fallacy) the article's Leftist AND Rightist propaganda/sophistry/POV-pushing.24.155.57.184 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to say that the economic position of Sweden and Finland has been created by income from petroleum. Both countries hardly have any oil industry(the United States produces more than 40 times as much as oil per capita as Sweden, and about 9 times as much as Finland). I also find it rather hard to believe that the main source of Danish economic performance should be the oil production, as my estimate is that oil has never contributed more than 5% to GDP.

But ofcourse, if you can find a reliable source which says that the main driver of the economic performance by Nordic countries has been oil and natural gas production, then by all means add it to the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Faulty: Cherry-picking the data to advance a POV

The article draws comparisons to the UK which I've highlighted in bold text above, and an article contributor --146.87.0.77, in the next topic on this Discussion page-- draws comparisons to the relative 'failure' of what he/she calls the "neoliberal" model or "neoliberal" nations... but such comparisons cherry-pick only the strongest (oil-rich) welfare-states. i.e. Some contributors to this article are cherry picking" the data (another fallacy of logic) when they compare only the 2, 3, or 5 nations which suit their POV:

To compare the superior GDP/growth/etc of a Nordic PETROL-STATE to "neoliberal" UK/USA, and then dismissing neoliberalism, is as logically-flawed as comparing the UK/USA to other welfare-statist/anti-neoliberal nations such as the low GDP of Argentina, and then saying, “See, performance of The Neoloberal Model is better than welfare-statism, because UK/USA beats Argentina's GDP (or GDP-growth, etc)”. Or we can make a similar fallacy by comparing the petrol-state of Saudi Arabia or UAE to the UK then stating, “See, the non-democratic and semi-theocratic Muslim Model "performs" by growing wealthy faster than the UK!!!!!1!1!!11!!" (whilst ignoring that in every non-oil-producing Muslim nation, the GDP is lower, and some common law nations are not as growing as wealthy as the UK...due to non-Saudi and non-UK factors, respectively). Yes I'm going to do this to death...this time not a petrol-state example: Should we compare the ultra-wealthy tax haven of Singapore to the world, then state, "See, Singapore's free-trade policies (which is what right-wingers seem intent to associate with the Nordic region's successes, as they (ab)use this article) and Singapore's welfare-state policies (which is what leftists seem intent to associate with the Nordic region's successes, as they also (ab)use this article) are helping Singapore's superior ”performance”...but hey, we won't even mention the economic “performance” benefits due to being a tax haven? Why would you ignore that SG is a tax-haven --or ignore that the Nordics have huge oil-wealth, per capita-- unless you're trying to focus on advancing a positive POV about welfare-states & someone else is trying to focus on advancing a positive POV about the free market? This paragraph sums up why I don't take advice from political economy students like 146.87.0.77 claims to be, esp those “students” who use fallacious logic or fail to cite any sources to prove even one of the things that they've claimed --i.e. long on opinions and short on facts/logic ;-) -- nor proving that they're even an actual PhD student of economics; I tend to judge people by the substance (logical+empirical substantiation) of what they claim, not what titles they (supposedly) have. Should we compare Venezuela favorably against other LatAm nations and then claim that --despite every other Bolivarian/socialist nation, allied with Chavez, are in the 5 poorest of LatAm as they don't have oil-money-- we should cherry-pick Venezueala and conclude that "Bolivarianism is working great" or “Venezeuela's success is creditable to the Bolivarian Model not its crude oil (despite that every Bolivarian-Modeled nation which is a NON-oil state is among LatAm's poorest)? ;-)” Look at the GINI of Panama then compare to nearby Guatemala: both poor, one with high GINI the other with low...similar culture. Am I cherry-picking that CentAm example? Nope... Look at low-GINI Balkans (poor) versus low-GINI Nordics (wealthy). High-GINI USA & low-GINI Europe: 2 major First World continents. Faltering Japan vs. nearby growing ANZ (all have nearly the same GINI). AND WORLDWIDE, look at WP's lists of the nations with highest GDP/PPP/GDP-growth, per-capita, and you'll find plenty with high, low, and moderare GINI in the top 10 or 20: whether going by nations on the same continent or of the same culture, or if we go worldwide, there's not even a solid correlation of wealth to GINI, and causality would be even harder to prove. But of course, this is OR on a controvertial topic, not something I'd submit on the Nordic Model page as some ppl here have disgracefully done.

SUMMARY: All the ideologues, right and left, want their favored ideology to be associated with a rising star, but commonality is not causality and all of the citations I see in the article -- all six of 'em ;-/ -- seem NOT to suggest causality or how left-wing/right-wing policies majorly enriched the Nordic economic ”Performance” (i.e. an economic boom) or how these policies relate, if at all, negatively or positively, to the economic performance... as opposed to the solid evidence that oil money significantly & measurably enriched them...24.155.57.184 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I feel that the article is biased towards the nordic model. The criticism of the nordic model was poor, and even included a rebutual in the next sentence. I believe the article should include subjects such as "flexible labour markets", "incentives to work", hidden unemployment and "quality of services". Also, the article is biased towards economic growth in the nordic model. The growth rate of all nordic countries (excluding oil-rich Norway) is not very good, but average. Camlon1 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I'm a student of political economy and doing my dissertation on fiscal crisis, and I recognise a lot of pro-liberal consensus language in this article. Why would anyone characterise the Nordic welfare model with quotes from right wing think-tanks? I'm surprised to read that anyone thinks it is biased toward a 'pro' position. It is demonstrably not.

The thing that distinguishes the countries which successfully apply the principles of a social democratic model is the low level of income inequality compared to neoliberalised states. It seeks to ameliorate the contradiction inherent in socialising the costs of capital accumulation while retaining the profit in private hands, by redistributing some of the wealth in services for everyone. It arose out of the tripartite (labour, capital, government) post-war consensus, but has been under attack since a crisis of capital accumulation in the mid-70s (precipitated by capital) created a demand for structural changes in the social democratic model which were more beneficial to capital.

Anyway, this is the kind of information you want for this article and I haven't even scratched the surface. There is SO much to say about the social-democratic model, its promise and its contradictions.

"Flexible labour markets" and "incentives to work", this is the language of capital and the 'workfare' state.

Such language reveals a poorly-conceived bias and gossamer-thin understanding of the imperatives at work in this sort of welfare model. You need only look at Britain and America to see that such policies have made the rich richer, and the poor poorer, which is not what the Nordic welfare model is about.

Both Britain and America, as examples of neoliberalised states, also each have huge illegal migrant workforces, in the case of Britain it has been estimated that it generates about 5% of GDP. This is a result of migration policies favourable to capital. Hidden unemployment is a huge problem in Britain and America, with a great many employees working reduced hours at low-paid service sector jobs. Statistically, in the US, if you work for three hours a day three days a week, you are counted as being in employment. This is a 'flexible' labour market, where no has enforceable rights, labour is blighted by sectarian division and is buoyed only by the provision of credit facilities; made necesary by wage repression that has been going on since the 70s.

On the final point I would suggest that quality of services is irrelevant in the context of this article, this is an bureaucratic/administrative issue and one could reasonably argue that even 'average' service provision is better than nothing at all?

146.87.0.77 (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, another point of view must be represented here as well, furthermore some claims (see below) are demonstrably false. I should add that both of you do not seem to be saying contradictory things - the article is quite extremely slanted to right-wing perceptions of what are good aspects of an economic model, yet also does somehow manage to maintain a very, probably biased, favorable description of what they see as being the nordic model. Aryah (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

72.207.236.50 (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)I disagree with this. No "point of view" should be shared in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is for facts, obtained from reliable sources. That is all. If one were to delete all the sections of this article that did not cite sources or state an opinion, there would be nothing left. This is what I suggest.72.207.236.50 (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

The article is one that needs to exist, as what other online information available on the topic is scant and skewed either one way or the other. I would love to learn more of the topic, but am a poor researcher, hence my reliance on things like Wiki and other online resources. While Wiki can't claim the authority of say Merriam's or Roget's, I do find it more expansive and useful. Even this article, poor as it is, was better than other materials I found on the topic. This article does need balancing, spell- and grammar-checking, even I can see that, lol. But it does exist, and it does give enough that it should stay, with the warnings and the option for completion and editing. Obviously there are enough folks interested in it to keep it from becoming a wholly unsuitable article. Perhaps, most likely, someone soon with enough knowledge and experience on the topic will have the time and inclination to work on it. 0²= infinity --Smokr (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

3 of the 4 links at the bottom go to the Mises Institute, a heavily libertarian think tank. Can someone please get some citations and expand the related articles and external sources section? Like Vergad said, this is already highly biased. --Autonomist (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy biased against the Nordic model!!! Verged 07:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What an earth has happened to this article???? Several months ago it was a balanced, correct view on the Nordic model, now it reads like from somebody who has no idea of the benefits that the model has brought and has a certain grudge against the idea it has lead to anything good. I suspect the changes have some relation to the Mises Institute links that have appeared.

Biased censorship!!! Hobbyman 20:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it needed some balancing links to pro-Nordic Model professional research sources, but a certain reader has deleted sections that they disagreed with, and this type of censorship is in no-ones interest. Last time I read this it mentioned High Taxes (unarguably true), the migration of high net-worth society members such as Ingvar Kamprad and Mikkel Kessler for tax reasons (also true), and the links to the Mises have gone. Maybe the Mises articles present biased interpretation to some, but their facts are normally accurate, and the three articles were actually even written by a Danish economics professor.

I suspect this is either a copyvio or original research. The original editor has only made this one contribution. RedWolf 16:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a much better page following re-editing. Funny that someone had taken the "high taxes" bit out, and the entire section on threats to the nordic model. I have amended the section saying "a few Danes and Swedes", to say "some Danes and Swedes". 50,000 (out of a population of 5 mil) Danes live in London alone, while it is estimated only 13,000 British citizens (out of 60 mil, live in Denmark). Dunwidda (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor Article ConXII 25 June 2008

I was happy to see this article on the Nordic Model, however, I'm afraid it's turned into just another example of why Wikipedia is not always a trustworthy source for information. The grammar on the page is poor and the author's bias against the Nordic model is clear as is his/her preference to, as has been said, Libertarian alternatives.

Several factual errors also present, including:

"The Nordic countries have been leaders in privatisation" <- Untrue. In the 1980's and 90's the Nordic model was largely able to survive economic turbulence without witnessing the same deregulation that occured in the UK. The Nordic countries to this day maintain strong public sectors, particularly when compared to, for example, Britain where everything from public transport and care for the elderly to the maintenance of roads has been heavily outsourced and in some cases monopolised by private companies. To illustrate, public transport in Sweden remains government owned whether it be by the individual Län (who hold jurisdiction over the various Lokal Trafik in operation throughout Swedish Counties e.g. Skåne Trafik or Hallands Trafik) or by the central government as in the case of the SJ state railways. It is the fact that privatisation of state-held assets has occurred less in the Nordic countries than elsewhere that is key to the distinction of the Nordic Model to my mind.

Reading through the rest of the article, the quality is strkingly subpar. The text is poorly written and becomes bogged down far too often in the rigmarole of percentages. Claims go unreferenced or are not elaborated upon such as "Environment: The Nordic countries, and specially Sweden, claim to be defending these concepts in the international arena."

I am hopeful that the poor quality of this article will be corrected by someone with greater knowledge of the Nordic model and access to appropriate references..

Nordic countries are on the top of Europe in terms of government outsourcing, just look at the referenced papers. And by the way, as far as I know, 100% of road maintenance is outsourced in Nordics and majority of transport sector is privately owned. And saying that Britain is heavily outsourced is not true in sectors, since Britain is behind Nordic countries in terms of privatizing health care and education.Turkuun (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where you live but as a citizen of Britain I can say that it'd be pretty difficult for a nation to be ahead of us in outsourcing. For example, the majority of Rail Transport in Sweden remains government owned, as another of your references states, whereas in Britain by far the majority is monopolised by Private enterprise. As for Health care etc. what you say contradicts everything I have learned about Sweden from my numerous visits there, from my own reading and from Swedes themselves and I unfortunately don't have the time to read the 167 page document in your references. However, if you yourself are a native of the Nordic countries you probably know better the intricacies of the government than I do. Still, I do not understand why then it seems that Swedes and Finns on here have complained about your edits as misrepresenting their nations.

I maintain that this article is bias though, especially in its tone and entire handling of its subject matter. But this has already been listed by other users above me so I feel no need to repeat what they have said.

ConXII

Room for improvement

I agree Saluton. Too many facts in this article lack citations. The bulk of the article seems to have a blatant skewness towards the model, again, with no sources cited. It is clear this article is skewed just by conducting a simple word count on the pro and con arguments of the Welfare Benefits section, the pro argument consists of 168 words to the mere 55 words of the con. Indecisive monk (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My feeling reading this, is that to improve the article and its neutrality, there needs to be less reliance on just two sources. Neither source is written from a neutral standpoint - they analyse the nordic model from a neoliberal perspective, judging it against neoliberal norms. This is reflected by in the article by POV statements, some of which even have normative content. eg. "The public sector's low productivity growth has been compensated by Europe's pioneering privatization and outsourcing programs". More sources and a major cleanup are needed in order to balance out the article. Saluton (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While there are serious issues with the article, comparing word-counts is not a measure of bias. The article fluctuates between being heavily pro or heavily con the subject of the article, and the text is inconsistent as a result. Let's just get more references and monitor the article for vandalism. Carewolf (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes no sense

This article makes no sense at all. The nordic model is about a highly regulated financial market, and symbolizes a welfare model.

Norway is the best example. Sadly, the nordic model in Sweden has been nearly destroyed by right-wing parties. Island went bancrupt in the financial crisis because of extremely liberal economical politics. Therefore several people have started talking about the Norwegian model, instead of the nordic model.

As as 11/Apr/2010, Norway is mentioned once in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.2.97 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is bullocks. The nordic model has nothing to do with high privatization and marked based thinking. It's all about the opposite. Keynes is also a key figure here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bthbt (talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you want to get technical; the nordic model is not used in the nordic countries. There is no common model the nordic countries are following for their welfare and economic policies. There is however an overlap in policies and success-stories that other countries might use as a model, which is referred to as the "Nordic Model". Privatization is a character of the Danish economic policies, and has also been used in Sweden. Both countries that have been pointed at as role-models. No one is pointing out Norway because they oil-income makes it hard to compare against. Iceland likewise have been too small and unique to use as a role-model. Carewolf (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes some sense, generous welfare state and capitalism not mutually exclusive

As a Norwegian who have lived abroad in the US and Netherlands, so I have some places to compare I would say that it is possible to have low regulation on many things and friendly business environment, while at the same time have generous welfare states. I found that living in the US there was often my impression that there were more rules and regulations. Just compare e.g. a Norwegian taxform with an American one. The Norwegian one is a lot simpler. Starting business is a fairly simple operation. I've done it so I know. Nordic countries have had a free market for electric power much longer than in the US (in fact I don't think they have one yet).

True labor regulations are stricter and there are more restrictions on business for things like opening hours, employing people etc. But it is still nothing compared to the kind convoluted mazes of rules and regulations you often find in say South American countries or Southern Europe which makes people chose to run businesses illegally, because cost of compliance is too high. I am not just making this up. Several indices published on ease of doing business, protection of property rights etch gives Nordic countries high listings. High taxes in and by themselves does not make it difficult to run business (taxes on companies are quite low anyway).

But one of the main differences between Nordic countries and say Anglosaxon ones like Britain and the US, is the lack of solidarity in the latter countries. Managers have no solidarity with workers and workers have no solidarity with the company. In Nordic countries everyone tries to work together, while it seems like that in e.g. Britain, US, Ireland etc workers and managers are supposed to be enemies and unions are supposed to come with unreasonable demands. Norwegian ship makers taking over shipyards in Britain tried to turn them around and the managers called in everybody including the workers to sit down and discuss how to turn things around. British unions did not understand the point and initially boycotted the whole thing. I have heard similar experiences from friends and family working abroad. It is not to pick on Britain or the US, but to point out that it is more than just politics but also a difference in philosophy and values.

Nordics will never be risk takers and entrepreneurs on the same scale as say as Americans and British. It is not part of the culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.110.114 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with bad content.

I'm in a bit of doubt. This article is clearly in a very poor condition with lots for biased statements. I wonder if it would be better simple to delete all the bad, unverified parts of this article, or if its better keep it as it is, just to have something on the subject, and then hope for someone to come along and fix it. TheFreeloader (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

this article is crud and makes no distinction between the nordic model as seen pre-1990 or so and the very different model that has subesequently gradually emerged. 94.195.129.125 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps move anything uncited that also doesn't seem to be common knowledge to this page?24.155.57.184 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In many ways it is completely misleading. Much of the information about economic freedom in Sweden is a result of the failure of the Nordic model, in Sweden, which forced a change in policy. Sweden became one of the most liberalised countries in the 1990s (partly because it had a far way to go, but also because it chose to go far, as a reaction to earlier policies). Whoever has written this does not make such distinctions.

[[[Special:Contributions/193.10.249.136|193.10.249.136]] (talk)] —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

There have been no failure of nordic model and no radical reorganization of Swedish economy. Just a slight change of emphasis.

At the core of the so called nordic model has always been strong labor unions, and their counterparts employer's organizations who have negotiated comparatively egalitarian distribution of wages, and those labor unions have shaped national politics to produce welfare states with high taxation and income transfers, strong safety net and government provided services such as education and health care. Within those constraints economic activity has always been "free", meaning distaste of tariffs, expensive severance fees and such, because, those employer's organizations have also been players in policy making arena and have contributed to public policy making.

There seem to be strong yearnings to emphasize liberal aspects of the nordic model and paint a picture that is consistent with libertarian, free market fundamentalist and neo-liberal world view. The truth is, nordic model have produced most social liberal societies that have ever existed. 80.222.183.57 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

privatized pension system?

article on swedish pension system, Social_Security_(Sweden) says that since 2001, their system is a 18.5% income tax , of which 16% is given for current payments (PAYGO) and only the remaining 2.5% goes to individual retirement accounts, and there are 5 government owned funds that manage money for future retirees. So, 86,5% is classic government PAYGO system. I'll put some tag for this, after figuring out which is appropriate.. Aryah (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nordic?

Why include the Netherlands which is not Nordic? Hugo999 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It was added by this IP without any sources provided, so I have removed mention of the Netherlands again. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nordic Socialism

I found source at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/14/business/14compete.html that refers to "Nordic socialism". The problem is that it doesn't refer to it as "Nordic Socialism", but as "Nordic socialism" which seems like more of a description of socialism found in Nordic countries. It's not used in a "title" way like this article is. That's the only reputable source that I was able to find, and in all honesty, I feel like the term was only included in the article to be partisan. It really serves no purpose, and it's not used widely by neutral parties. I think it should be removed. If I don't get a response within a day, then I'll just remove it. 69.242.186.39 (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad link to CPI survey

The link at footnote #4 does not work anymore. The site it links to states the operators have launched a new website, and the CPI survey is not available on the old site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.215.170 (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Overview dead link: The Nordic Model - Embracing globalization and sharing risks

I believe I found an updated link as they appeared to have changed the site structure. Can anyone confirm this?

http://www.etla.fi/julkaisut/b232-fi/

http://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/B232.pdf

81.233.34.70 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup that is the same report.

Liberalism or neo-liberalism?

"Sweden's neo-liberal policies, such as reducing the role of the public sector over the last decades, has resulted in the fastest growth in inequality of any OECD economy."

I question whether it is accurate to describe the country's latest tendencies to open up the market as neo-liberal instead of simply liberal. Sweden has had a long tradition of closed markets and government monopolies, opening up these markets has lead Sweden to become more similar to other western economies, calling it "neo-liberal" makes it sound like it has somehow gone beyond the European average.

Remember that reduced government control doesn't always mean neo-liberalism, because ending monopolies is hardly extreme or neo-liberal. Everything is relative, so I think it would be more fitting to simply call it "liberlisation of the market". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.230.189.109 (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Describing the Nordic Model by using Iceland hospitals

Regarding this comment in the edits, "It's also referred to as Nordic Social Democracy. It has aspects of both capitalism and socialism (all the hospitals in Iceland are state owned and run)." While that might be true in Iceland, that's certainly not true in every Nordic country. 2601:9:4600:C93:5AB:4AFD:9DB8:3CC6 (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Almost all hospitals in the Nordic countries are state owned. For instance in Denmark there are only a few private hospitals, they specialize either in luxary care for those with too much money, or in doing factory like mass surgery for the state to close waiting lists. They are ALL however second class hospitals, if anything goes wrong on a private hospital or complications arise the patients are immidately moved to the public owned hospitals since they are better equiped and have better doctors. So change the note about Iceland. Almost all hospitals and definately all university hospital, all research hospitals and all hospitals with emergency care in the Nordic countries are state owned. Carewolf (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not exactly true. Sweden has a privatized a large part of their health sector and has been doing so for some time, and the hospitals are certainly not second class. See reference: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/18/private-healthcare-lessons-from-sweden. 2601:9:4600:C93:8CBD:85D4:F75B:CCD3 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Allegations that the Nordic model is a mix of capitalism and socialism

The claim that the Nordic model represents a form a "hybrid" between capitalism and socialism is false and usually only made by Americans and articles by those who are not well versed in comparative economic systems. The actual economic mechanisms are free-market capitalist - relatively free markets and high concentrations of private ownership (the only exception being Norway, where the state owns shares in publicly traded corporations), with no economic planning. The Nordic model is even more lassiez-faire than Continental European economies such as France, and Swedes don't even describe their model as being "socialist" (despite having been governed by a Social democratic party for decades). What can be said is the Nordic model achieves some of the outcomes socialists like to see (greater equality, etc.) using capitalist processes and judicious use of policy for income redistribution.

I have removed this material from the lead and placed it in a subsection called "foreign perspectives". -Battlecry 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation - Nordic model (prostitution law)

In a discussion in a feminist forum today, there was mention that this Wikipedia article does not provide a disambiguation to the now very common use of the term "Nordic Model" here in North America (and particularly Canada) to refer to the "Swedish Model" or "Nordic Model" of prostitution law. I'm wondering what the best solution is - perhaps linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden#Current_legal_status or perhaps even more accurately, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_law#Sweden.2C_Norway_and_Iceland in the disambiguation would be a solution? (As for references in NA to the Nordic Model in this context, they're very common... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/prostitution-laws-should-follow-nordic-model-former-sex-trade-worker-says-1.2554978 for example, as well as http://www.straight.com/news/595431/ottawa-eyes-nordic-model-prostitution-legislation. I note there is not a specific article on the Nordic/Swedish model that I can find... - Reecesel (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the law is unique to Sweden, it is not a nordic model in any sense, so we should avoid spreading that misuse of the term unless you can prove it is a common misuse. Carewolf (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO, it's an incredibly common 'misuse,' considering it seems to be the term of choice by nearly all media, feminists, and so on. Here's a sampling of examples. From mainstream media in Canada:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/prostitution-laws-should-follow-nordic-model-former-sex-trade-worker-says-1.2554978

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/02/20140221-074213.html

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/nordic-sex-trade-strategy-gaining-steam-251639621.html

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/feminist-current/2014/02/eu-parliament-passes-resolution-favour-nordic-model

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/20/john-ivison-flawed-report-could-be-basis-for-tories-new-prostitution-law/

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/prostitution-laws-what-are-the-nordic-and-new-zealand-models-1.1603213

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/prostitution-should-it-be-legal-yes/article17173130/

http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/11/Nordic-Prostitution-Laws/ , etc.

Internationally, it's also very commonly used: e.g.:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nordic-model-prostitution-england-wales-called-by-mp-gavin-shuker-report-1438676

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/support-for-nordic-model-on-prostitution-hailed-1-5914681

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/26/meps-vote-criminalise-buying-sex-european-parliament

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/madam-is-not-for-changing-canberras-prostitution-laws-20140320-3567d.html, etc.

- Reecesel (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

General "Neutrality" Comments

• I believe the overt problem with this article in terms of a public/mass education type read is that as currently written, a reader comes away with a very positive outlook on the Nordic Model not just as an economic organizing philosophy, but as a societal force.

• • Once can argue that it is in FACT a POSITIVE "economic organizing philosophy" though that demands a subjective opinion cast onto the reader, rather than the statistical facts, counterpoints, and contrasts.

• • On can also argue that NEGATIVE facts have been obscured in the article, and that the "philosophy/system" is in fact not well portrayed both as an 'on the ground economic reality' (I think we can agree that the Nordic model has not produced economic utopia in Scandinavia), or as a unique approach to state-sponsored economic management, a child of historical forces as much as fiat and cultural experience.

• The POINT is that this issue is very politicized, especially in the United States, where active ideological disagreements lead to common and frequent references to the Nordic Model as being an ideal to be followed, while those who disagree (FULL disclosure: I am American, and prefer the Swiss economic model above all), do so on widely divergent planes with all manner of critique.

• What I am proposing: The article intentional or not gives one the impression that the Nordic Model is the "solution" to the "problem" that is Economics. This isn't simply bias, it's completely an original and novel conclusion that befits a thesis or a book, not an information encyclopedia entry which presumes little to no advance knowledge, and hopefully presents the reader the opportunity to form a brief opinion pending further learning - I believe that is the main purpose of Wikipedia article entries; I may be wrong, that's how I use it.

• Whether because of lack of reference, statistics, or even better coverage of the LONG academic study and (American) pop-culture obsession with this issue (which is rife with misinformation of all manner), I believe the article needs serious "attention from an expert" to specifically delineate how and why the Nordic Model exists (it's close with this), the consequences of the model for the societies it is used it (weak on this), the costs and benefits (article mentions one type of tax (income?) and even then very vaguely with a number, though the income tax system is graduated I believe), costs/problems aren't really mentioned.

• I actually do NOT believe the article requires a "critique" section - Economic models, national or otherwise, should speak for themselves, and importantly, should note where conclusions are being extrapolated. (e.g. Does the Nordic Model produce low crime? This is a causation assumption (it has been studied, I don't know the current thinking), but this type of argument is tempting when one writes about economic structures. We must be cautious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commissar Mo (talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)