Nordstjernan

The Series
I had originally intended to write an article upon a superb lecture by Denmark’s Ambassador to Sweden, Ove Ullerup, presented at the University of California, Berkeley. However, as I was writing this article, Nordstjernan’s digital table of contents, Sweden Today arrived by email. One of the articles briefly noted that US News and World Report had completed its annual report on the 80 Best Countries, in which Sweden ranked #6.

During my original drafts, while listening to the PBS News Hour, I heard an interesting report on the health implications of wealth inequality, which complemented the lessons I had learned in the ambassador’s class.

Following my initial draft, I very carefully studied the USNWR compilation of more recent numbers and as additional, independent indices from his. Indeed the two did complement and confirm the Scandinavian countries pre-eminence in numerous categories. So, I present these three articles in this new series from different vantages as a series of separate but complementary views on the distinctiveness of Scandinavia today, at a time of great international and domestic turmoil.

PART 1 of 3
All of us readers of Nordstjernan are self-selected to be interested in Sweden in particular and in Scandinavia in general. Many first generation immigrants can fly back home regularly, but for those of us who are Swedish-Americans of several to a dozen generations, while we cherish our bicultural heritage, we tend to focus upon many of the old traditions and customs brought here by our earliest immigrants. Few of us probably keep current with affairs in Sweden, except through Nordstjernan or other world news. We tend to perpetuate our ancestor’s Christmas smörgåsbord and midsummer delicacies together with attendant traditions and songs. Perhaps we follow specialized contemporary Swedish arts and culture, or indulge in old folk dances and home decorations.

As we already seem to be launched into a perpetual political electoral cycle, now might be a good time to educate ourselves about contemporary affairs in our ancestral lands, before domestic political bickering labels our ancestral land and customs or stigmatizes Scandinavians. You might be even more proud of what you discover.

At this moment in US history, it seems important for us to learn what makes both our American and Scandinavian heritages so special and how the Nordic region’s worldwide leadership is recognized for being so distinctive and forward-focused. Scandinavia has greatly advanced since the days when it was primarily agricultural nations with a rigidly stratified class system. During its periods of agricultural failures, many, many Scandinavians flooded into the US to escape those dire times at home and to prosper for themselves and for their children here. Our meager refugee status at that time proves instructive today. They came here without language, with little education, and with a determination both to succeed and to remember their homelands.

Now in much more prosperous times, Scandinavian emigrants are at least bilingual and bicultural; they are very well educated and worldly travelled, so they know multiple languages and cultures, and like their countries, they are often entrepreneurial capitalists interested, like all, in being successful, wherever they live.

I had the great good fortune to learn so much more about Sweden and Scandinavia by attending a couple of talks that enlightened me to contemporary and comparative values. In February, His Excellency Ove Ullerup, Denmark’s Ambassador to Sweden, visited Professor Robert Strand of the University of California’s Haas School of Business and then they spoke at the university’s Institute on the European Union. A week later the ambassador guest lectured at the professor’s class on “Sustainable Business in the Nordics”, providing an exciting perspective for each audience on “Sustainability: Why & How—The Nordic Way”.

Before we begin, let us note that our European homelands use the terms “Scandinavian” and “Nordic” differently than Americans do. In Europe, “Scandinavia” signifies only the three countries: Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; there “Nordic” includes those plus Finland and Iceland. Here in the US, “Scandinavia” typically covers the five countries, and is synonymous with “the Nordics”. Interestingly, among entrepreneurs from these five countries visiting or working in Silicon Valley, they typically assume either of these more generic terms, rather than identifying themselves only by their home country, because the whole region is admired for its innovation, second only to Silicon Valley itself. Amb. Ullerup came here to teach us why the Scandinavians are so prolific.

Nordic capitalistic democracies
The ambassador spoke primarily to an audience of UCB college students, many of them emigrants themselves from other countries but with similar dreams and background. They listened to the ambassador’s lessons from the perspective of their course on future directions of world societies during perilous times here and abroad.

In speaking to us, he mentioned that most of us are ignorant about and have difficulty in distinguishing between the terms “socialism”, “capitalism”, and “communism”. Stop here now: can you distinguish these terms, or are we merely indoctrinated by our politicians’ labelling opponents with these terms? That day the ambassador spoke to us about Nordic capitalist societies. Are you used to thinking of them as such?
He began by introducing students to Scandinavia: the Nordics all are democracies and capitalistic, first and foremost, and are among the most successful per capita. Due to the mid-19th century enlightenment, which occurred throughout northern Europe, folk-schools provided rudimentary education to their citizens. Later these students publicly debated the fairness and nature of their societies. Consequently, after much public demand, all of these monarchies were willing to submit to representative legislatures. It is remarkable that the kings were willing to give up power while retaining their thrones. Like the US, these Nordic nations all began to discuss their political and social future, defining their government and demanding their rights in a constitution. This is just what our 13 colonies had done a century or more earlier to define and defend themselves by inventing the US.

Nordic democracies basics
Ullerup began by defining the basic elements of Nordic democracies: 1) Trust; 2) Cooperation; 3) Gender Equity; 4) Equal Rights and Opportunities; and 5) Transparency and Openness.

Trust
Their systems wouldn’t work without this fundamental trust. Nordic citizens believe in the legitimate authority of their government to work for the betterment of all. Now is a time of testing for Sweden, after having accepted the greatest proportion of refugees, per capita, in Europe. Based upon their personal experiences in their countries of origin, many of these refugees cannot believe that governments can be beneficial to them personally. So, they are suspicious of officials and find it difficult to accept this principled trust; for some this makes it impossible to adapt to their new country.

Most Americans know one thing about Scandinavians: compared internationally, they are highly taxed; yet many Scandinavians regard this as an investment for improved benefits administered by the government.

Cooperation
Similarly Nordics believe in the useful cooperation between corporations and government. Each supports the other for the benefit of the citizens.

3. Gender Equality
While the ambassador admitted that the Scandinavians still have a way to go to attain full gender equality, such equity is a fundamental value, in which they certainly exceed most other nations. Not mentioned at this point, but complementary, is the shared cultural value of modesty and moderation: all people are accepted as of equal value. Scandinavians as a common culture frown upon boasting.

4. Equal Rights and Opportunities
To achieve this society based upon their values, they must assure that all citizens have equal rights and must, therefore, have comparable opportunities to allow them to exercise their full talents. But this equality also applies specifically to rank and wealth, which they overturned from their former, historic nation-states, which had constrained so many people and so much talent.

5. Transparency and Openness
To achieve all of these goals, not merely the government, and companies, but all organizations must be transparent and open, because that is necessary to insure the basic trust. This transparency of both government and business is rare, but it is the grease which allows the system to operate and function smoothly. And this applies across society throughout Scandinavia.

Comparison of Democratic Values
To certify the success of the Nordics with these basic values, Ambassador Ullerup, then showed how these countries rank among the democracies of the world, according to the UN, which maintains many such measurements of the world’s nations. We in the US take great pride in our primal historic Declaration of Independence and Constitution, dedicated to this proposition of democracy. Where would you rank us, putting aside for a moment the hubristic belief in our exceptionalism? The diplomat demonstrated this with a series of slides listing UN rankings of its member states on various values.

1. Democracy Index 2018
1. Norway; 2. Iceland; 3. Sweden; 4. New Zealand; 5. Denmark; 6. Ireland; 7. Canada; 8. Finland; 9. Australia; 10. The United States of America
Did you note not merely the Scandinavians but also Commonwealth members? Oh yes, and the US made the Top 10 list.

Similarly the ambassador showed a couple of other rankings, comparatively demonstrating what these Nordic political systems accomplish. If gender equity is an important shared value, then it was useful to see how they compare with other developed countries (OECD).

2. Gender Equality (OECD Gender Index)
1. Switzerland; 2. Denmark; 3.Sweden; 4. France; 5. Belgium; 6. Portugal; 7. Austria; 8. Slovenia; 9. Italy; 10. Estonia
Note that these are not necessarily the wealthiest nations, though of the 5 permanent members of the 15 member UN Security Council, only France made it onto this list.

Next, continuing to define the Nordics, the ambassador ranked how the various countries’ compared in the case of corruption, with the least corrupt first.

3. Corruption (Corruption Perception Index)
1. Denmark; 2. New Zealand; 3. Finland; 4. Singapore; 5. Sweden; 6. Switzerland; 7. Norway; 8. Netherlands; 9. Canada; 10. Luxembourg; … 22. The United States of America.

Four Defining Values of the Nordic Model
After those general comparisons, the ambassador then turned to other aspects that distinguish these Nordic nations. He termed these as four of the defining qualities of the Nordic Model. They are:

1. Balance
While the Scandinavian nations are not the wealthiest, they are far from the poorest nations. Rather like the earth in astronomical terms for life, the Scandinavians live in a “goldilocks zone”, which they have defined and constructed, one that is not too rich, nor too poor, but just right in which to live and prosper, where, because everyone is close in equality, there is not much sense of envy nor anger. Instead, to encourage couples in sharing the task of raising children, the government finds it worthwhile to provide generous maternity and paternity leave. This sense of balance when applied to gender equity, means that they encourage equality on their country’s corporate boards, because they believe that alternative view points are a strength. And in most things they encourage a balance of viewpoints believing that everyone has a right to voice their opinion, as a means of discovering what is best for the greatest number of people.

2. The Social Contract
This is another unique perspective. They prefer that the whole team contributes to an effort, not merely the top performers. This allows Scandinavians to run their government, institutions and companies at maximum effectiveness, rather than at maximum effort. The aim is to get everyone involved, which continually strengthens the community and achieves its goals.

3. The Tripartite System and the Nordic Labor Market
This is perhaps the most difficult thing for outsiders to understand, and to duplicate, thereby assuring the Nordics their continued superiority and leadership. Yet, while modest, they are always willing to share with others the lessons they have learned.
Every three years Labor and Business collaborate under Government auspices to determine what is best for all according to foreseeable conditions, not just what is advantageous for each party but for all, including society. This means that if the cost of living is going up, and because their employees and other citizens are their consumers, then the employees in all industries are going to need to receive more in order to keep abreast of social conditions. This puts the emphasis upon cooperation rather than upon adversarial competition.
Thus, in Scandinavia, the government leaves it up to both sides to arrive at a consensus that helps both and the country. Only if the two sides, Business and Labor, cannot agree, does the Government become involved on behalf of society to arbitrate an agreement fair to all. This applies to salaries, to work conditions, to privileges, and to all aspects of the relations between managers and workers. Both are seen as important partners in managing the country and the state.
This arrangement has the further benefit of quelling labor strikes in order to achieve more effective bargaining. With less wasted time, the Scandinavians are more productive and efficient. This keeps the entire society relatively level; so the Scandinavians are known for their good and beneficial equality; for cooperating socially whenever possible, rather than competing at the other’s expense.
Consequently this system is really run by the market or the real conditions facing the entire country and its citizens. Because Business and Labor are initially negotiating, they will reach the best solution because they are most aware of the actual state of the market. So, in effect these partners tell the government that they can solve the problems of the system without any interference from the state, which can then focus upon the other aspects of governing.

4. Flexicurity
This portmanteau, a combination of “flexibility” and “security”, is the famous Scandinavian safety net, perhaps most effectively done in Denmark, according to the ambassador.
The Nordics feel that it is neither in the individual’s nor the society’s interest to have its people unemployed. That places unnecessary but great strain upon an individual, when they are not secure enough to know they can earn enough to pay for their needs.
The government does not want a person to lose family, health, or marriage on a whim of business or instability. It is also best to maximize the person’s skills for then she or he is most effective by working at the top of her/his talent. In such a case it is best for a person to compete so as to rise in skill, competence, and salary, within or across industries.
Given this philosophy, if one is laid off, then one can gain unemployment insurance payments but must get back into the labor market within a specified time.
As in Silicon Valley, Scandinavia does not regard unemployment or a business closing as a failure, nor the person as a loser, as long as one has learned a lesson and can continue and improve. In these Scandinavian societies, then, people will very quickly find a new job, retaining their old friends at their former company but gaining new skills, greater value, and new friends.
During this period, the government helps each unemployed person by retraining them with new job training skills and new job hunting skills, as well as providing them with the latest market information. Job changing then is not traumatic, but educational, investing in both companies and society by enhancing the individual’s skills.
However, while employed, if you want to move to another position withinin the company or to a different company, then that is your affair and the country helps you, believing that you are continually improving yourself, and therefore the new company and country. It also makes the companies more competitive for good talent.
A concurrent aspect of this mobility is that flexibility is noted and its own reward. This is acknowledged by all and is valued much more than service at a single company. Consequently the Nordic countries are almost always fully employed, unlike Southern Europe. At the moment the US is tenuously touting its low unemployment.

to be continued in Part 2

PART 2 of 3
After my listing of the four Nordic values in my preceding article, it may be particularly useful to digress momentarily to consider a complementary segment broadcast on US national TV shortly following the ambassador’s talk, after which we’ll return to his lecture on The Nordic Way.

“Making Sense”: inequality and well-being”
On PBS NewsHour last month, Paul Solmon’s “Making $ense” segment < https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-economic-inequality-might-affect-a-societys-well-being > featured a discussion with the economist couple Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson on “How economic inequality might affect a society’s well-being,” particularly in terms of health and happiness. Obviously, this is a concern in the current US political discussion; however, it also is pertinent to our topic about the Nordic Way.

The Nordics have much less wealth disparity than we do. The experts noted from their studies that rich people are uniformly happier than poor people. However, while the increase of personal wealth may produce contentment, beyond a certain point this is negligible, for both individuals and countries. So, in the rich, developed world, economic growth no longer gains us health and happiness.

With specific reference to the difference between the US and Scandinavia, the moderator’s expert guests noted that “if you and I have equal education, the same incomes, the same wealth, the same social class, [but] if you live in a more equal society than I do, [then] you are more likely to live longer; your children, to be healthier; they are less likely to do drugs or drop out of school. Everything about your world is going to be better.”

A decade ago this couple linked a rise in mental illness and the inequality of wealth. Since then, they see an epidemic of mental illness in the most unequally rich, developed countries. About 80% of young people feel incredibly stressed, many of them suicidal or hurting themselves or others. In Britain and the US, about 20% of the population have a diagnosable mental illness.

While these effects are biggest among the poor, yet they pervade even the top decile of wealth. The couple sees this inequality affecting our physiology and hormones, how we think and behave. Those changes are linked to a range of mental illnesses known to be related to income inequality. The rise of prescriptions for depression and anxiety correlate to income. So, people in societies of gross inequality judge themselves and others based upon status, causing them even more worries for how they themselves are seen and judged.

The TV segment concluded with these two expert social economists predicting that if a more equitable redistribution of wealth, opportunity and privilege does not happen but inequality continues to grow, then that whole society will become very unequal, resulting in further measurable declines of happiness and well-being.

Is it not interesting that in the later 19th century the Nordics specifically designed their societies to avoid these curses of inequality due to rank and wealth? With that observation, now let us return to Ambassador Ullerup’s talk about The Nordic Way.

Scandinavian Individualism
The basic philosophy in Scandinavia is individualism. Each person is encouraged to constantly improve: there is no benefit to stay in your place, if you don’t like your present job.

The ambassador admitted that the Nordics had been blessed with a more homogeneous society for a long time; however that had changed significantly in the last quarter century and especially during the refugee crisis of the last decade when they accepted great numbers of refugees.

Now the Nordics must make these new citizens of the Scandinavian countries understand and adopt the new country’s rules (the bargain refugees make by immigrating to any country). Perhaps this may have something to do with the size of the adopting country, or at least the relative sizes of the native and immigrant populations.

This incorporation of people from very different societies with almost opposite traditions and histories, makes it very difficult for the Nordics to transition from their homogeneous societies to heterogeneous ones while retaining each country’s own ethnic values. This will be the Nordic’s central social issue for the near future. And such seamless incorporation into a new society will only work if these new citizens thoroughly accept these new values and integrate completely into their communities. That is not to say that the immigrants cannot retain complementary traditions from their native countries.

If, however, these immigrant retain their own traditions, do not accept the language and values of their adopted country, but form their own ghettos where they practice almost exclusively their native countries’ customs, then this social experiment may significantly effect the progress of 21st century Scandianavian social and political gains.

A useful comparison here would be the integration of 19th and early 20th century Scandinavians into American society, which was also highly influenced by the domestic effects of two World Wars, escaping the searing effects inflicted upon our fellow American citizens of Japanese descent. While cherishing their homelands, our new Scandinavian-American immigrants took great pride in becoming citizens of and contributing to their new country (as did the loyal Japanese-Americans), with no intentions of returning to their homeland, unless it be to retire with more beneficial benefits. Such is the reason why our local congress of Swedish clubs consecrated themselves to their dual heritage as the Swedish American Patriotic League, a combinatory title often seen in American immigrant clubs.

In the Tripartite System, each respective level of labor and business negotiate within their own industry and level, until this reaches the highest levels of negotiation across all industries, where they come to an agreement to present to the government. Obviously this is very different than our US method.

Another significant difference is that the Labor Unions are encouraged and protected within all companies. They are not prevented from forming nor blocked from representing the blue-collar workers (of course now there are white-collar unions in the US as well, which would seem a gradual, progressive step). All of this cooperation minimizes strikes, making everyone more productive. The labor unions are consensus based rather than conflict based.

The other major distinction from the history of the United States is that in Scandinavia the social basis of health care is government authorized. And all of this is due to the Scandinavians innate sense of social balance, which becomes so important because of the fundamental trust that all citizens have in the system and in their government.

How Do You Combine?
So, the critical question comes down to: how does a country integrate and combine refugees and new immigrants into its native population? To make this choice clear in the case of the Nordics, Ambassador Ullerup showed a slide listing several of the Nordics’ fundamental values which might be new to such immigrants: 1) Substantial regulation; 2) Equality; 3) High Taxes; 4) Big Public Sector; and 5) Individual/collective solutions. As you can see, these are a useful comparison for any country wishing to attain their almost universal high standard of living.

What is so interesting about this list when compared with other developed countries, particularly in combination with that final element, is that these Nordic countries all put a primary value upon freedom of the individual. Of course, all democracies proudly proclaim this to be the case in their countries; however they measure up against the Nordics.

So, the ambassador stated that because of this dedication to a society focused upon individual freedom they are also dedicated to its implications by assuring that their societies also be: 1) Efficient; 2) Economically Sound; 3) Ambitious; and 4) Innovative — all of which emphasize and provide the opportunity for an individual to flourish. Consequently, these new values are perhaps the most important asset of the Nordics or Scandinavians. They challenged themselves to create governments and societies that not only meet all of these criteria but also guarantee their success compared internationally to other national systems and values.

With that as the challenge, the ambassador suggested that we compare the Nordics to the world’s top countries. So, the real question about Scandinavia becomes: Is it possible to have a government and society that meet all of the above criteria and share all of those values and yet is successful and competitive internationally?

Scandinavians’ Success
Let’s compare the Scandinavians with other world powers on several metrics of success. The first of these he offered was how each country tries to guarantee the health of its citizens and society, to guarantee a citizen’s freedom. One’s health is essential to the full development and expression of an individual’s liberty, not to mention that the fear of anything that lessens one’s healthy equality cripples the individual and the society.

1. Healthcare Spending by Country
1) US = $8,047; 2) Norway = $5,399; 3) Luxembourg = $5,286; 4) Switzerland = $5,030; 5) Germany = $4,869; and 6) Sweden = $4,606; 7) Netherlands = $4,378; 8) Denmark = $4,363; 9) France = $4,068; 10) Canada = $3,382.

Immediately we notice that the US has the most expensive healthcare system among these top ten. And, of course, the universality and generosity of each system differs. Norway and all subsequent listed countries are at least two-thirds less costly than our US system. And we hear complaints all the time about the costs of our system, let alone that our system is not universal, and isn’t even particularly notable for our veterans, let alone other important civic volunteers. Ideally all US citizens would have the same universal, lifetime healthcare that we provide for those who represent us in our Congress (what a radical notion!).

2. Effectiveness of National Healthcare
Next the ambassador compared the effectiveness of each country’s healthcare (as reported by the World Economic Forum, as a percentage of GDP compared with life expectancy, both variables as of 2013). This was presented as a bar graph, for which I have estimated the percentage of effectiveness and the life expectancy:

Estonia was an outlier at 5% for 81 years; however, among other developed nations, the results were closer: UK & Finland shared 8% for 81 years; Iceland & Norway, 8% for 82 years; Denmark, 11% for 80 years; for 12%, France and Sweden, have 82 years, while also at 12%, Germany and Netherlands, have 81 years; with Switzerland at 12% for 83 years. The outlier was the United States, ranked seventh (including ties above) at 17% of GDP for its average longevity of 78 years.

What is most interesting in this category is not merely that five European countries were more than double as efficient as the US, but also that all of the countries listed here had longer life expectancies. Particularly this appears to be relevant in light of the TV program’s comments regarding a longer, fuller life.

3. Ease of Doing Business per Country
Another way of comparing the development of one’s citizen’s freedom of expression, would be the ease of doing business (again the source is the World Bank for the year 2019, where 1 = most business-friendly regulations, as the source of the index comparison):
1) New Zealand; 2) Singapore; 3) Denmark; 4) Hong Kong, SAR China; 5) Korea, Rep.; 6) Georgia; 7) Norway; 8) United States; 9) United Kingdom, with Sweden at 12th place.

4. Renewable Energy Self-Sufficiency
Concluding his lecture, the ambassador showed the degree to which Denmark is meeting its total renewable energy generation goal per its domestic energy consumption: 1970 = 1%; 1990 = 6%; 2017 = 31%; 2030 = 50% of its target. He indicated that Denmark had achieved all this despite some notable disadvantages: 1) it has no hydropower because it is so flat and it receives relatively little sunshine. Yet despite these disadvantages it compares favorably with Nordic and Baltic neighbors in the European Union for the percentage of renewable energy contributed as part of their total consumption, when compared for 2004 and 2016:

Renewable Energy Proportion of Consumption (2004, 2006; EU’s 3rd# = 2018)
European Union: 8%, 17%, 20%; Sweden: 39%, 54%; Finland: 29%, 39%; Latvia: 33%, 37%; Denmark: 25%, 32%; Estonia: 28%, 29%; Lithuania: 18%. Sweden expects to be carbon neutral by 2045.

Denmark, however, is now known in Europe for wind, solar, and geothermal renewable power sources. As a result it has become the top producer of windmills. And this in turn has led to a new eco-ethic in the nation, as individuals use renewables and recyclables. Consequently since 1970 Denmark has almost doubled its productivity from renewables, so that now they are creating energy from waste-water. In conclusion, as a result of his term as Danish Ambassador to Sweden, he admires Sweden as the most innovative region in the world.

The ambassador expressed his thanks to the professor and students for sharing with them some of the characteristics of the Nordic Way that all Scandinavians share in common. He explained that while he had served Denmark in the United Nations by contributing to developing the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals, and served diplomatically on several continents, he enjoyed this opportunity to share this topic at the university. Everyone remarked that he had been an inspiring teacher.

To be continued in Part 3

PART 3 of 3

The Best Countries
I was about to finish my discussion on the Nordic Way with the previous article when my email delivered the latest copy of Sweden Today, the digital table of contents for Nordstjernan. There our newspaper noted that Sweden ranked 6th among the top ten countries in the 2019 edition of US News and World Report’s ranking of the Top 80 Best Countries. These comparative statistics were compiled by a global marketing communications company and the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, based upon 22,000 responses, in which the responses to the citizenship portion of the survey comprised 16% of the rankings for the country.

So, I took the time to review that more recent compilation to see how it independently updated the ambassador’s figures. You can study this too at the website, cited in Sweden Today: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/ .

A couple of quotes from the beginning of the compilation were particularly noteworthy for our purposes.

“Many thought leaders have proclaimed the Nordic model—known to promote social justice and progressive causes—one of the most sustainable ways forward, and people around the world seem to agree. Norway takes the No. 1 in Citizenship for the third year in a row.” And:

“Nordic neighbors Finland and Sweden also top the list [for Citizenship], along with Switzerland and Canada — all countries that have relatively generous social safety nets and offer affordable health care and education. They are among the world’s wealthiest nations and are also democratic. The United States [#16 for Citizenship], which often positions itself as a champion of freedom, didn’t crack the top 10 for the fourth year in a row. The global superpower continues to take hits in perceptions of its trustworthiness.”

Following this, the overall ranking of the countries for this year was significant. For a better comparison, I have added to this list, for each country, the table’s 1) GDP; 2) Population; 3) Area; and 4) GDP per capita [not personal wealth per quintile or finer]:
GDP Popl. Area (sq.km.) GDP/capita
1. Switzerland $678.bn 8.5m 141,277 $62,135
2. Japan $4.9tr 126.8b 377,915 $42,942
3. Canada $1.7tr 36.7m 9,984,670 $48,390
4. Germany $3.7tr 82.7m 357,022 $50,804
5. United Kingdom $2.6tr 66.0m 243,610 $44,292
6. Sweden $538.bn 10.1m 450,295 $51,185
7. Australia $1.3tr 10.1m 7,741,220 $51,185
8. United States $19.4tr 325.7m 9,833,517 $59,792
9. Norway $398.8bn 5.2m 323,802 $72,058
10. France $2.6tr 67.1m 643,801 $44,081
11. Netherlands $826.2bn 17.1m 41,543 $53,933
12. New Zealand $324.9bn 4.7m 268,838 $39,012
13. Denmark $324.9bn 5.7m 43,094 $50,071
14. Finland $251.9bn 5.5m 338,145 $44,492
15. Singapore $323.9bn 5.6m 697 $94,105
*. Iceland was not ranked among Top 80 Best Countries of the World.

What is most significant to me about this list are three things: 1) four of the five Scandinavian countries were in the top fifteen; 2) more than half of the countries were European; and 3) one-third of the number were native English-speaking countries. Also the typical argument by politicians in the US is that it we can’t learn anything from the Scandinavians because they are too small and homogenized populations. The last point definitely does not hold since they have become more heterogeneous during the last dozen years and two of the countries ahead of the US are larger than us, at least in land area (China—larger by area and population than the US—by the way, was #20, in the top quarter of all countries on this list of 80).

Because of Ambassador Ullerup’s emphasis on the democratic and capitalistic nature of all five Nordics, and because of the emphasis that these countries put upon the individual, voting, and civic participation, I was keenly interested in what these USNWR Best Countries rankings had to say about Citizenship (which counted for almost 1/5 of each country’s score). For citizenship the rankings for the Scandinavians and the US were: #1 (at the top of the 80 countries) was Norway, Sweden was fourth, Denmark was 13th and Finland 14th. The United States was 16th. All of the Scandinavian countries were notable for the lack of corruption.

Among the eight qualities of citizenship upon which all countries were judged were: respect of property rights; gender equality; well-distributed political power; care for the environment; care for human rights; and religious freedom.

Other significant qualities upon which all countries were judged were: 1) how open all were to Business (capitalism); 2) how distinguished each was for Entrepreneurship; how available to all and at what cost a good Education was; and, to make it all worthwhile, how much value each country placed upon their citizens’ Quality of Life.

In the ranking of countries which were best for creating and conducting Business, the rankings were as follows: 1) Luxembourg; 2) Switzerland; 3) Panama; 4) Sweden; 5) Denmark; 6) Singapore; 7) Canada; 8) Norway; 9) Finland; and 10) Thailand.

In the ranking for Entrepreneurship (with Innovation as one of its subcategories) were: 1) Germany; 2) Japan; 3) United States; 4) United Kingdom; 5) Switzerland; 6) Sweden; 7) Canada; 8) Singapore; 9) Netherlands; and 10) Norway.

For individual and professional development, as well as for the countries to maintain their international and commercial leadership, Education was a key factor. Here were the rankings for this essential characteristic: 1) United Kingdom; 2) United States; 3) Canada; 4) Germany; 5) France; 6) Australia; 7) Switzerland; 8) Sweden; 9) Japan; and 10) Netherlands. Notable for the US, this ranking was based upon the general quality of college & postgraduate education, not upon nor including the affordability nor equity of that education.

But given all of these qualities for Business and Entrepreneurism, it all seems rather pointless unless one can live in a country and society which values equity among all (Citizenship), a full and free Education for all according to their abilities; and a Quality of Life that encourages development of the whole person. Here are the rankings for this last quality: 1) Canada; 2) Denmark; 3) Sweden; 4) Norway; 5) Australia; 6) Switzerland; 7) Finland; 8) Netherlands; 9) New Zealand; and 10) Germany.

Of course, as we see in some of these rankings, but particularly those for power, might, and influence, the US was always in the top few places in those categories. But it was interesting for me to learn how prosperous and enjoyable Europe and the British Commonwealth are comparatively and internationally on so many important aspects.

Supplementing Ambassador Ullerup’s talk about the Nordic Way with this additional perspective, we can be very proud of our Swedish heritage as well as those of our Scandinavian neighbors. For a band of small countries, they do indeed seem distinctive. Perhaps even larger countries could learn a great deal from them. Before, politicians with blinders only to our own experience, felt they could dismiss other nations’ successes as irrelevant. Recent Scandinavian immigrants are more knowledgeable about their native countries’ current situations; indeed many return almost yearly. However, for those of us Swedish-Americans of longer descent here, perhaps we should take pride in the countries of our ancestry as much as we do about the US, and not be seduced by the ignorant opinions of politicians and others with little direct experience and even less interest. I am grateful to have had this introduction to the comparative values of many nations of the world.

But studying these comparison, I don’t want to be so beguiled by the chauvinistic argument for “exceptionalism” as to ignore the substantial challenges facing all the nations individually (and each of the Nordics), even before we consider the greatest threat to our planet and challenge to our cooperation for survival, climate change.

~ TED OLSSON
San Francisco