Stefano Amantini/ Atlantide Phototravel/Corbis

Why Scandinavia is not the model for global prosperity we should all pursue

The truth is that there is no one model of prosperity. In the future, there will have to be multiple models of prosperity based on individual circumstances, and the specifics of culture, history, economics and politics; not everybody following one model - but everybody flourishing within their own context.

Published: Wednesday 11 March, 2015



And so another league table has confirmed what has become a truism: that when it comes to prosperity, Scandinavia rules the roost.

This year’s edition of the annual Legatum Prosperity Index (LDI) places Norway, Denmark and Sweden in first, fourth and sixth places respectively, with Finland trailing at a still-enviable eighth. The UK was 13th, narrowly beaten by Ireland but ahead of Germany.

The Nordic nations frequently feature at the top of such lists, giving the aura of a shimmering northern utopia. On almost every indicator worth measuring – from public health to educational attainment and social wellbeing – the Scandinavians seem to have got things sorted.

But should we all be aiming to be Norway? Indeed, is that goal even desirable?

Scandinavian societies are certainly admirable in many respects. Their high scores for human development are built around principles of individual autonomy and self-determination.

Their commitment to gender equality saw Norway introduce a much-publicised law in 2003 requiring 40% of board members at large firms to be female, in an attempt to forcibly shatter the glass ceiling. Female political representation is also high, and both Norway and Denmark currently have female prime ministers.

These countries also fare well on measures of inequality – with Gini indicesconsistently ranking them among the most income-equal societies in the world.

Low levels of unemployment are supported by high levels of engagement between trade unions (in Sweden around 71% of workers are members of unions), the government and employers. Arguably, this results in a more engaged and democratic workforce.

But not everything is as rosy as it might first seem.

If we look at carbon emissions per capita, some Scandinavian countries are ranked quite high - Norway is in 24th place and Finland in 26th compared to the UK’s 47th, according to the US Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC).

And on the WWF’s scale of ecological impact across carbon, grazing land, cropland, fishing ground, forests and built-up land, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden are all near the top of the chart, consuming considerably more than the world average of 2.7 gha per capita (one gha represents a biologically productive hectare with world average productivity).

In other words, citizens of these countries – just like all nations in the global north - are consuming resources at a rate that would require several Earths to sustain.

Part of the problem is that the Scandinavian nations (with the possible exception of Denmark) have based their economic success on extractive industries – whether it’s Norway’s oil, Sweden’s iron ore or Finland’s forests, creating huge carbon footprints. Being geographically remote and subject to extreme cold for parts of the year also means that their food production capacities are small, with the consequence that a high proportion of food and other goods have to be imported, creating road, air and shipping miles.

In prosperity terms, they also enjoy the luxury of having relatively small, homogenous populations across which to spread their wealth. In this, the Scandinavian nations are again unusual.

So, the Scandanavian countries might look like league champions. But they don’t necessarily provide a desirable model for future prosperity in the rest of the world.

Read the rest of the article on The Guardian Sustainable Business Rethinking Prosperity Blog

http://gu.com/p/43n94/stw

Share this article:




Recent Posts

Time for a new prosperity, rooted in a symbiotic relationship with nature

Commentary

The independent review on The Economics of Biodiversity led by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta has now been delivered to the government. The report underlines our failure to grasp that our economies are “embedded within Nature, and not external to it.” We rely on nature to “provide us with food, water and shelter; regulate our climate and disease; maintain nutrient cycles and oxygen production; and provide us with spiritual fulfilment and opportunities for recreation and recuperation which can enhance our health and well-being.”

Read More

Co-designing solutions to Lebanon’s energy crisis

Commentary

On 4 August 2020, a massive explosion at Beirut’s port killed at least 200 people and caused up to $15bn in damage to buildings and infrastructure – including the destruction of the public electricity company building. It was the latest blow for a country battling a 30-year energy crisis and facing chronic shortages as a result of an ageing infrastructure based around fossil fuels.

Read More

Reinvigorating local economies through Universal Basic Services, not income

Commentary

In 1945, the UK’s welfare state was set up to address the want, need and misery caused by unemployment. Seventy-five years later, prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, we had almost full employment in the UK – and yet we still have massive levels of poverty and precarity experienced by people in work.

Read More