Marginal Revolution: How good is the Nordic model?

July
S	M	T	W	Th	F	St
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

« Department of Hmm.... | Main | Markets in everything: African dictator edition »

How good is the Nordic model?

Jeffrey Sachs has written a new paper on the Nordic model, extending his Scientific American article in praise of the welfare state. It is listed as "not for quotation" so I won't. I agree with much of the paper, but I would emphasize a few propositions more:

1. Many ideas and innovations are international public goods. This will make the Nordic model more sustainable over time. Swedish society doesn't have to be that innovative, although of course sometimes it is.

2. Societies differ a great deal in their innate level of cooperativeness. This is a key to making the Nordic model work. I wouldn't try the Swedish model in France, much less in the United States.

3. The Nordic countries generally take a light hand in regulation, capital income taxation, and many of the public welfare programs pay people to work and not to sit at home on their behinds. In fairness to Sachs, he does mention these points. Furthermore given the extensive subsidies to child care, which encourage female labor force participation, the high marginal tax rates do not discourage labor supply as we might at first think.

4. Government policy is often most usefully thought of as endogenous. Higher levels of cooperativeness, and lower levels of corruption, mean that people will choose more government. The government they get will work better than government works elsewhere. The point is not that all choices are efficient, but rather there is a selection bias in the data we observe on government size and performance. Nordic welfare states are large, in part, because they work relatively well.

5. The long-term consequences of a slightly lower growth rate are in any case troubling, no matter how well a society works at any moment in time.

Here is my previous post on the Nordic model. Here is a post on Swedish stagnation. Excerpt: "I've been to Stockholm several times and loved it. That being said, how attractive will this model remain when it offers only half of the per capita income of the United States?"

Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 26, 2006 at 05:54 AM in Economics | Permalink

Comments

Ever increasing productivity suggests to me that we will eventually need to move toward a welfare state.

Even now, I see most of my co-workers as deadweight. Most jobs probably exist due to labor laws preventing discrimination.

If you link about it, most white collar jobs are simply management of the redistirbution of income (sales, regulations, and finance).

Posted by: aaron at Oct 26, 2006 9:06:05 AM

link=think

oops.

Posted by: aaron at Oct 26, 2006 9:07:39 AM

Mr. Cowen,

Back in 2004, you wrote “I'm willing to take the Swedish model seriously. I've been to Stockholm several times and loved it”. What exactly did you love about it? What made Sweden attractive?

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 26, 2006 9:44:08 AM

We had a vast expanse of welfare spending in the US in the 60s and 70s. I seem to recall certain adverse affects on family structure.

Maybe it’s a mistake to assume that what works in Sweden will work just as well in the US.

Posted by: Roy at Oct 26, 2006 10:03:32 AM

Are high marginal tax rates defendable as long as tax dollars are used on things such as day care programs? To balance out one's view of the "success" of the Swedish model, one must consider the Howard Center's Allan C. Carlson's writings on the topic. This paper is a good summary, but much more can be found on the web.

Posted by: chris at Oct 26, 2006 10:10:14 AM

The Nordic model does not work!

http://www.johannorberg.net/

Posted by: Niels Andeweg at Oct 26, 2006 10:18:26 AM

Another question would be, does the Nordic taxation system tax
"households" or just individuals.

If they are trying to encourage both marriage partners to work, a high marginal tax rate would hurt dual income "households".

Posted by: Xmas at Oct 26, 2006 11:11:03 AM

Some more criticism from Mises Institute: http://www.mises.org/story/2259

Posted by: dimakor at Oct 26, 2006 11:11:23 AM

Can the Swedish model really be said to work when the birth rate is 1.75? What happens when you have a tenth of the population working to support the other 90%?

- Josh

Posted by: Wild Pegasus at Oct 26, 2006 11:14:04 AM

Which leads to the next obvious question: Will the model continue to work as the Scandinavian counrtries cease to consist of relatively small, homogenous populations and become more pluralistic because of immigration?

Posted by: BC at Oct 26, 2006 11:53:32 AM

Chris,

That's a fascinating essay you cite. I hadn't thought of what the article
explores but once pointed out it's seems obvious. I don't know whether the
solution Allan C. Carlson advocates is practical.

If there's any hope for his path there has to be a radical shift in
attitudes towards the desireability of teenage labor. I do clearly remember,
as I teenager, resenting the more-or-less mandatory uselessness of teenage
life. The opportunities to constructively engage with and be part of
something meaningful in the adult world, or to do very interesting things,
were very limited.

I don't think most people want to become like the Amish. The question is
how to raise modern, technically sophisticated children whose education
and lives spin around their families and the formation of new families
instead of the state.

Maybe a more open and competitive educational system would help a lot. Say for
example we separated teaching from the evaluation of course material so
that instead of degrees being awarded from a college the degree would mean
a nationally standardized proficiency in a certain set of subjects. That in
turn lead to a far more productive and efficient, and probably cheaper,
educational system characterized by a greater diversity of practical pathways.

Which would in turn open up other possibilities including family-centric
as opposed to state-centric lives.

Posted by: Mark Amerman at Oct 26, 2006 11:54:40 AM

Swedish economist Andreas Bergh says that Peter Lindert significantly overlooks the extent to which the Swedish govt does pay people to sit on their behinds. He sheds light on many related issues, such as female labor force participation. See Bergh's exchange with Lindert in Econ Journal Watch, which I edit:
www.econjournalwatch.org

Posted by: Daniel Klein at Oct 26, 2006 12:17:27 PM

You make a point I think is often underdone: that whawt worksfor one culture might not work for another. By comparison to us, the Scandinavian countries are very small, and relatively homoegeneous Their history is different. Is there any reason to think that what works there should work for us? I mean, maybe there are ideas and notions we can steal and learn from that'd work well with our givens. But we should be a little wary of simply running and doing likewise, no?

You write: "how attractive will this model remain when it offers only half of the per capita income of the United States?"

I dunno. But, assuming incomes generally keep rising and Scandinavians aren't too crippled by envy, maybe it'll work fine. After all, they'll be experiencing growth and will be better off than they are now. Given that they're already fairly rich, that ain't so bad, right?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard at Oct 26, 2006 12:17:31 PM

At the bottom of the brief Scientific American article is this footnote:

"For details see background paper (Sachs, 2006)"

Wondering exactly about these details I went to Jeffrey Sachs list
of papers at Columbia University.

First item up is ""Welfare States Beyond Ideology," Scientific American, November 2006."

Except when accessed

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/about/director/documents/ScientificAmericanNovember2006-WelfareStatesBeyondIdeology.pdf

it's pretty close to the same essay, just a little shorter. At the bottom of it
is this footnote:

"An expanded version of this is available online at www.sciam.com/ontheweb"

which turns out to be precisely what Tyler cited.

I looked further at Jeffrey Sachs website and found no dataset to go with
the essay and no footnotes to tell where precisely he got his data from
and what exactly he was looking at.

Posted by: Mark Amerman at Oct 26, 2006 1:04:46 PM

Ok, I'll say it. Sachs has done a horrible job picking his countries. He is making an apples to oranges comparison, and so far no one is calling him on it.

First off, to not acknowledge that Norway is an extreme case that rightfully ought to be left off of any comparison is just plain wrong. Norway has a huge amount of oil and gas wealth per capita, and is also socking away a lot of money for the day when their oil will run out, and it is running out. The notion that this huge amount of per capita GDP is somehow due to the high tax model is absurd. Same goes for their surplusses, plus the ability to sustainably fund lots of social programs.

Second, comparing small population sies with large population sizes is wrought with conflicts, and ought not be done if there is a reasonable alternative. I'd hope it would be obvious that a small country (population-wise) has huge advantages over large countries when it comes to improving per capita GDP. If Sachs wants to compare small countries instead of the bizarre English speaking sample he picked, then that would make more sense. I nominate Sweden, Denmark, and Finland vs Ireland, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

Another comparison that makes more sense than Sachs' is large population countries. I nominate the US, UK, and Australia vs France, Germany and Italy.

Sachs is correct, the evidence is in and it points in the exact opposite direction he wishes it pointed in.

Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Oct 26, 2006 1:36:19 PM

I assume Sachs's essay is to a large extent statist ideology trying to pass as
analysis. The Economist reported a month or so ago on the "Swedish model" (citing a
McKinsey study) that unemployment in Sweden is 15-17%, not the 5.8% or so the
government reports. Unemployment for young people, especially Muslims (who are
not well integrated into Swedish socieity), is considerably higher, and more than
a third of people who are employed work for the State.
Of the fifty largest Swedish firms (e.g, Ikea, Nokea), not one was started after
WW II. Doesn't sound like a very dymanic place to me.
And there's also a lot of nanny statism. A friend reported that he was on a train
in Sweden once, and the guy next to him was rolling his own cigarette because of the
high taxes on them.

Posted by: Bill Stepp at Oct 26, 2006 1:38:50 PM

According to the "CIA World Factbook," the combined population Sweden,
Denmark, Finland, and Norway is 24 million. The combined population
of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland and
New Zealand is 420 million.

Sweden comprises 38% of the scandanavian population; the United
States 71% of the anglo-american.

So simplifying my calculations and skipping the other countries
to do a quick verification:

Sweden has a purchasing-power parity of $268 billion; the U.S.
$12,360 billion. Sweden has a working age population of 5.9 million;
the U.S. 200.5 million. Thus purchasing-power parity per working-age
swede is $45,400 versus $61,645 for the american.

Yet Mr. Sachs table shows $50,700 for the scandanavians versus $48,500
for the anglo-americans.

I'm not calculating exactly the same thing but still it seems they
should be in the same ballpark. What's going on?

Posted by: Mark Amerman at Oct 26, 2006 1:44:10 PM

I was thinking the same thing as happyjuggler0. Norway, at 19%
of the scandanavian population, should not be included with the
others. Because of it's gas and oil Norway has more money than
it knows what to do with. This unusual situation is going to distort
all these numbers. Certainly there's no counterbalancing similar
free money in 19% of the anglo-american world.

For example, one of the things that Norway does is to guarantee
every person a job. If you can't find a job in the private sector,
the government will give you one. If you don't like that job,
the government will try to invent a job that you do like. Not
surprisingly Norway has the highest employment rate in the world.

It's all very interesting but it seems an inappropriate point of
comparison.

Posted by: Mark Amerman at Oct 26, 2006 1:56:53 PM

The combined population of Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota,
and South Dakota is about 12 million. Scandanavia minus Norway,
which should be excluded for the reasons given above, is
about 19 million. Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, and
South Dakota have a high percentage of people with scandanavian
ancestry. They are also more culturally homogeneous than
most of the United States.

Have minimized the variables about as much as is practical,
it seems like this would be a good point of comparison.

Posted by: Mark Amerman at Oct 26, 2006 2:08:04 PM

First I would like to commend Tyler for being
willing to confront and provoke lots of his
readers with facts/arguments that go against
their preconceptions. I have been hearing for
decades about how the Nordic model is "doomed"
and about to collapse and on and on.

So, fine, Norway has lots of oil so we can
pretend that its system has nothing to do with
its good performance, even though a lot of oil
exporters have lousy economic performance, Dutch
disease, lots of corruption, and dictatorships,
and so forth, e.g. Russia, Libya, and Venezuela,
to name a few.

Also, while it is the biggest, Sweden has also
arguably been the one of the furthest out there
in its system, someone reformed afte 1991. What
about some of the others?

Let's look at an important set of facts. Just
googled per capita income nations rank and got
a list pulled from the 2005 World Bank Development
Indicators report. Here is the list of the top 11
countries in order after adjusting for PPP.

Luxembourg
Norway (oh, sorry, we should not mention it!!!!)
Switzerland
US
Denmark
Iceland
Japan
Sweden
Ireland
UK
Finland.

Guess what kids, all the Nordic economies are
in the this group. Wanna go on about how they are
all going to be in terrible shape in a few years
or how they do not work or how they are about to
collapse or how they should imitate Hong Kong (# 18)
or Singapore (# 20)? Maybe Ireland is worth
emulating, although only Finland is behind it on
this list. And the Nordics pretty much beat everybody
on education and life expectancy (except Japan on this
last one), and they easily have the lowest poverty
rates in the world by any measure, even if those
rates may be increasing, especially among their
growing immigrant populations (ah, Peter Schaeffer
is right again! Of course you are right, Peter,
Stockholm is awful, unlike what Tyler said, especially
if you have to pay the high taxes and get subsidies
for sitting around doing nothing, poor thing).

Niels,

Went to Norberg site. Maybe he showed how the
Nordic model "does not work" in one of the postings
in Swedish (which I do know a bit of, but not enough
to read all those postings, or maybe this was one of
the other Scandinavian languages), but I did not see
anything in the English postings. Does Norberg actually
know relevant data or is he just bloviating about high
taxes, immigration, and disguised unemployment in
Sweden?

Regarding the issue of population density. Again,
having lots of natural resources can be a curse,
not a blessing. Second, if anything, a bivariate
regression at the global level will show a positive
relation between pop density and per capita real
income, with a lot of outliers of course. There
are good econmic reasons (think endogenous growth
models and issues of transportation costs) for why
densely populated countries might have higher per
capita incomes, although this is a complicated
matter.

Now, the Nordic economies do tend to be among
the high income outliers on that story, along with
Canada and Australia. But, Denmark is one of the
more densely populated countries in the world,
and I remind that it is # 5 in per capita income
rank, the highest of the Nordics except for that
one nobody is supposed to mention... In Europe,
aside from micro states like Monaco (actually # 1
in density in the world), those in Europe that
are denser than Denmark are the following in rank
order

Netherlands
Belgium
UK
Germany
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Czech Republic.

Except for the last of these (just barely ahead
of Denmark), this is not a poverty stricken
group, with Luxembourg and Switzerland in the
top three in the world in real per capita income.

Iceland is the least densely populated country
in Europe, but # 2 is resource rich and not so
high per capita income Russia.

Regarding Sachs, I found his Sci Am piece to be
pretty weak, full of barely supported assertions,
even if much of it is more or less correct. What
is amusing is that just over a decade ago when he
was advising some of the transition economies, he
was urging them to slash their welfare state programs
(in order to balance their budgets without raising
taxes, eeeeek!). I heard him complaining in a major
address at the AEA meetings after Poland voted out
its first reform government precisely because it
wanted to follow Jeffrey's advice, that the Polish
pensioneers were a bunch of spoiled whiners. Of
course Poland has generally done pretty well, as
have the Central European countries that ignored
his advice and mostly kept those programs in place,
in comparison with some others that undid them and
have had major social and political collapses and
upheavals (think Russia).

Oh, a final picky point. People should be careful
not to call Finland "Scandinavian." That is a linguistic
category, a subset of the broader Teutonic category,
which also includes English, sort of. Finnish is not
even an Indo-European (aka "Aryan") language, but is
part of the Finno-Ugric group, which includes Estonian
and Hungarian. The Uralo-Altaic linguistic hypothesis
argues that the Finno-Ugric group is also related to
the Turko-Altaic group, and also includes Japanese.
Thus, Finnish and Japanese may be more closely related
than either is to Swedish or English.

In any case, "Nordic" is the more correct classification
that includes Finland with Scandinavian 4: Norway, Denmak,
Iceland, and Sweden.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Oct 26, 2006 3:06:40 PM

aaron at Oct 26, 2006 9:06:05 AM
suggests that rising productivity will
lead to fewer jobs. But rising
productivity has been associated with
rising numbers of jobs -- indeed with
rising labor force participations rates,
that is more jobs per person of
working age.

Posted by: Shakespeare's Fool at Oct 26, 2006 3:10:32 PM

I've been on holiday to Sweden, Norway & Denmark several times over the last 20 years (and like Tyler I dig Scandinavia). I think the 'Nordic model' will evolve, but stay largely intact.
But I would offer one interesting (to me) observation on travelling around Sweden: I was there again recently with friends & stayed in Youth Hostels [very clean, cheap & spacious] but invariably all the other boarders were retired (although often in their 50's). The kids all amuse themselves, as globally, by hanging out in groups at their local town centre for free, but only the oldies can afford to regularly travel for leisure (it seems to me).
They've got a great social structure, so I'm sure they'll adjust well, but my obsevations suggest to me that there is currently an inequality between those lucky few who are retired on great pensions in their 50's now & the prospects for Sweden's youth...

Posted by: Nick at Oct 26, 2006 3:49:32 PM

Tyler,

“Societies differ a great deal in their innate level of cooperativeness”

Do you mean that the rate at which the cooperation gene is expressed in a country’s population varies significantly between countries?

Posted by: Aaron_M at Oct 26, 2006 4:42:02 PM

Cooperativeness is inversely proportional to ethnic diversity. This is a genetic trait shared by all humans. The more closely related a group are to each other, the higher the cooperation within the group.

Posted by: Mallory at Oct 26, 2006 5:18:40 PM

The most similar American state to Scandinavia is Minnesota. Minnesota's neighbors, Wisconsin and Iowa, with their large German populations, also have some Social Democrat tendencies. All three are pretty decent places to live for the majority (if you can take the weather), but something worth noting is that their black communities are among the most dysfunctional in America:

Minnesota has the highest black to white imprisonment ratio at 31 to 1 in 1997.

Iowa has the highest absolute black imprisonment rate at 4.8% of the whole black population (1997).

Wisconsin has the highest black illegitimacy rate at 82% in 2004.

This suggests that the Nordic model works better for more Nordic sort of people and worse for less Nordic people.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/10/nice-north-centrals-not-so-nice-black.html

Posted by: Steve Sailer at Oct 26, 2006 5:35:05 PM

Mark Amerman,

Comparing a few states in the upper Midwest (IA, MN, ND, SD, WI) with Scandinavia is a legitimate exercise, at least in my opinion. Given that these states are part of the United States and share the same basic model as the other American states, differences can be revealing. While these differences don’t rise to the level of proof, they do provide an indication as to whether the success of Scandinavian model reflects the model or the culture of the people.

A quick check of http://www.nemw.org/poverty.htm shows that all of these states (except for SD) have poverty rates below the national average. MN is the second lowest in the nation. The NAEP data (see http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/results2003/stateresults.asp) for 8th grade math in public schools shows that these states rank near or at the top. Indeed, MN is number one. Another source (see http://www.psk12.com/rating/USthreeRsphp/STATE_US_level_Middle_CountyID_0.html) puts 4 of these states in the top 8 (MN is number 2) and WI at number 15.

Measured by the percent lacking health insurance, these states once again perform quite well. Indeed, MN is the only state in single digits (8.3%). See http://www.laborresearch.org/charts.php?id=35 for the raw data.

Barkley Rosser,

I have no data to suggest that immigrants are adversely impacting the Scandinavian economies, at least so far. Denmark has sharply limited immigration of late and economics were an issue (along with others). Finland remains a very low immigration society (2% total, .5% non-European). Norway and Sweden have higher immigration levels.

However, there is significant data showing that immigration has seriously impacted crime. See http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20552 for an article on the subject. Similar data exists for other European countries.

I can say that Stockholm is quite nice, having been there many times. However, the same can’t be said for Malmo. Parts of Malmo are so dangerous that ambulance drivers require a police escort. Indeed, police cars require a police escort. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139614,00.html for an article about Muslim immigration and crime in Malmo. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden for some Malmo crime stats.

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 26, 2006 6:56:49 PM

With all the posts about states and country gdp per capita or rather gsp per capita, you might want to look at this table with real numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

Posted by: joan at Oct 26, 2006 7:40:10 PM

The Scandinavian model is another name for welfare state fascism, perfected by Sweden's wartime friend, Nazi Germany. Sachs is a leftist who failed in every attempt to reform ex-Communist countries.

Posted by: Mark at Oct 26, 2006 8:15:12 PM

Schaeffer:

A Danish organization: The Rockwool-foundation's research-unit, has looked at a lot of the issues about immigration, and they have also economic analyses of this issue:
http://www.rff.dk/

As far as I know they have not published very much in English, so I guess the link is not that valuable. However, I remember reading a few years ago an economic impact study from the foundation by the Swedish economist Eskil Wadensjö claiming that the net effects from immigration was negative. The study was released some years ago, in 2000, and is to be found in the Danish-written not-translated book "Integration i Danmark omkring årtusindskiftet" written by Gunnar Viby Mogensen and Poul Chr. Matthiessen.

Another book released in 2001 might be a good place to start for English readers though: "The integration of non-Western immigrants in a Scandinavian labour market: The Danish experience"
http://www.rff.dk/da/publikationer/boeger/2001/
(I have unfortunately not read the book myself, but as Wadensjö is co-auther I would assume that this analysis would not differ much from the one in the Danish book from the year before).

Both books were published before restrictions on immigration was passed by the new government in 2001. I analyzed the survey conducted by Wadensjö in 2000 in a political science project in high school a few years back and thus still have the analysis on my computer. His analysis shoved that the net contribution (to the government - not GDP) were basically found to be positive for immigrants from Scandinavia and "other Western Countries" and were found to be negative for "3.rd world immigrants". The figures back then, about the year 2000, was a negative contribution to the government amounting to appr. 63.000 kroners pr. year (11-12.000$) from 1.generation non-western immigrants from 18-65 years old, and the figure was 24.000 kroners (4.5-5000$) for the 2.generation of this group (same age, and a much smaller sample) - there was thus also a very clear convergence taking place. Labor market participation was also discussed and the results here were that a relatively high fraction of the negative net-effects were caused by very low female labor market participation from the immigrants from 3.rd world countries - especially from Muslim countries such as Somalia.

It is not reasonable to claim that these numbers have not changed during the period, as the Danish immigration policy has been reformed in many ways. However, the study might be applicable as a rough estimate of the Swedish experience, as their immigration policy - as well as a lot of other cultural, political and economic factors - today are comparable to the Danish around 2000.

Posted by: US at Oct 26, 2006 8:20:26 PM

joan,

Thank you for the post. However, you need to consider cost of living differences. Steve Sailer has attempted to do the calculations. See http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/05/standard-of-living-by-state.html. MN ranks 1, WI 3, IA 11, ND 22, and SD 23. California ranks 49th. In this context, I usually say "thank god for Mississippi". However, Hawaii is number 50 in this case. Mississippi ranks 45th

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 26, 2006 8:25:04 PM

Peter Schaeffer,

Thanks for digging up that information on Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota.

I found this site:

http://www.demographia.com/db-intlppp-region.htm

which has 1999 data comparing U.S. states with various european regions.

Comparisons of estimated 1999 purchasing-power parity per person

region ppp/p pop. in millions
------ ----- ----------------
Minnesota -------------------- $34,175 4.7
Norway ----------------------- $33,174 4.4
Finland, Uusimaa (Suuralue) -- $30,165 1.4
Wisconsin -------------------- $30,112 5.2
Sweden, Stockholm ------------ $29,027 1.8
Iowa ------------------------- $28,853 2.9
South Dakota ----------------- $28,139 0.7
North Dakota ----------------- $26,522 0.6
Finland, Aland --------------- $26,047 0.0
Denmark ---------------------- $25,347 5.3
Sweden, Smaland Med Oarna ---- $21,426 0.8
Sweden, Ovre Norrland -------- $20,937
Sweden, Mellersta Norrland --- $20,847
Sweden, Norra Mellansverige -- $20,416
Sweden, Ostra Mellansverige -- $19,868
Finland, Etelae-Suomi -------- $19,836
Sweden, Sydsverige ----------- $19,569
Sweden, Vastsverige ---------- $19,294
Finland, Pohjois-Suomi ------- $18,624
Finland, Vaeli-Suomi --------- $17,820
Finland, Itae-Suomi ---------- $16,025

The information about Sweden and Finland gets too detailed, but
the basic pattern is clear. Norway and Denmark are comparable to
this group of american states, while Sweden and Finland (with the
exception of their capital city regions) are definitely a notch below.

As I said before I don't think reveals much to include Norway
because of their special situation with respect to gas and oil.

To improve this data it should be brought up to date and adjusted
for the percentage of the population of working age.

Also in addition to the absolute estimates of real income it might
be even more revealing to look at the trends through time. That
is whose situation is improving or detiorating and how rapidly.

Posted by: Mark Amerman at Oct 26, 2006 9:52:51 PM

I think the paper that Chris cited above,

http://www.mises.org/story/1406

is more thought provoking than the essay by Jeffrey Sachs.

Quoting the author, Allan Carlson,

"The Myrdals fleshed out this program in their best selling 1934 book,
Crisis in the Population Question, a brilliantly argued volume which
substantially transformed Sweden. While Swedish conservatives continued
to fret over sexual immorality, the Myrdals pointed directly at the
contradictions created by an incomplete welfare state. Prior government
actions such as mandatory school attendance, the ban on child labor,
and state old age pensions, they admitted, had stripped away the value
of children to parents. But the costs of children remained at home. In
consequence, children had now become the chief cause of poverty. Given
the incentives set up by the state, the very persons who contributed
the most to the nation's survival by having children were dragged down
into poverty, shoddy housing, poor nutrition, and limited recreational
opportunities. A voluntary choice between poverty with children or a
higher living standard without them was what young couples now faced.
Young adults were forced to support the retired and the needy through
the state's welfare system, and also the children to which they gave life.
Under this multiple burden, they had chosen to reduce their number of
children as the only factor over which they had control."

If we are to believe Carlson's account, and I see no reason not to,
the real motivation for Sweden's "universal state allowances for children's
clothing, a universal health insurance plan, a universal entitlement to
day care, state-operated summer camps for children, free school breakfasts
and lunches, state-funded family housing, birth bonuses to cover the
indirect costs of having babies, marriage loans, the expansion of state
maternity and midwife services," etc., was to encourage people to have babies.

Carlson also argues that the cause of the rapid drop in birth rates
below population replacement in the 1930s was the earlier reforms,
"mandatory school attendance, the ban on child labor, and state old age
pensions," which had eliminated all the pragmatic incentives for
having children. Whether it's true or not, it certainly sounds plausible.

The interesting thing here is that none of these extensive measures
have ever gotten Sweden's birth rate above replacement -- although they
very likely stopped the birth rate from falling even further (so that
in the european context Sweden has a relatively high birth rate). Still
it's an unstable situation. None of the virtues of the Swedish
economic model add up to anything worthwhile if two centuries from now there
are hardly any Swedes.

Denmark, Finland, and for that matter Norway, have the same problems
with birthrate, or even worse.

Where this all really becomes especially relevant to the United States
is when we look at U.S. birthrates. I know a lot of people want to
believe that U.S. birthrates are above replacement, but my gut feeling is
that this is just not true. The U.S. is a multicultural society and births
are unevenly distributed. I suspect that for most all of the people
reading this blog, if they could look at the birthrate of the people
they went to high school with, it would be well below replacement.

The U.S. economic model will be of only passing historical interest
if the people practicing it have become a small minority two centuries
hence.

Posted by: Mark Amerman at Oct 26, 2006 10:27:50 PM

Take away their oil, would it work?

Posted by: Sandy P at Oct 27, 2006 2:11:51 AM

You can safely ignore the "don't quote" or "fair use not allowed" instructions unless you have _contractually_ agreed to such restrictions. Outside of a contract these instructions are fraudulent. They can't unilaterally claim more property rights than they actually own.

Posted by: harbinger at Oct 27, 2006 2:55:42 AM

Peter -- I did not look at what Steve Sailor has done.
But you can go to bea.gov and get real gdp data per state
and from census get the population data to calculate
real per capita gdp. Note I am saying real not nominal
so it is adjusted for price differences.

If you do this you find that in 2005 real per capita gdp in
California was 109.4% of the national average and in mississippi
it was 63% of the national average. this calculation has Hawaii
at 98.5% of the national average.

Posted by: spencer at Oct 27, 2006 9:55:47 AM

Spencer,

Check the explanatory notes over at

"Real GDP by state is an inflation-adjusted measure based on national prices for the goods and services produced within that state"

Interstingly enough, the US government does not provide state or local COLI (Cost Of Living Index) data across states or localities. The BLS web site even says so. Check out http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_18

"No, an individual area index measures how much prices have changed over a specific period in that particular area; it does not show whether prices or living costs are higher or lower in that area relative to another."

Steve Sailer used private sector data to produce his table.

This makes sense if you actually live or work in California. California isn't rich anymore. Poor people are moving into garages and are eager to do so. High income professionals live in houses that would be laughed at in other parts of the US. Given high nominal incomes, at least tradable goods are cheap in California. Hawaii combines pricey housing with lower incomes. Not a pretty picture if you have to work for a living.

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 27, 2006 1:30:25 PM

Spencer,

Sorry about the URL omission.

Check the explanatory notes over at http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/GSPNewsRelease.htm

"Real GDP by state is an inflation-adjusted measure based on national prices for the goods and services produced within that state"

Interestingly enough, the US government does not provide state or local COLI (Cost Of Living Index) data that are comparable across states or localities. The BLS web site even says so. Check out http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_18

Steve Sailer used private sector data to produce his table.

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 27, 2006 1:36:50 PM

Regarding birth rates, the Nordics are doing better than
most of Europe.

The state level per capita income data matches the national
levels. The US is ahead of all of them except Norway, but
not by huge amounts.

Just looked at some life expectancy numbers. Minnesota has
by far the highest in the US at 79.1, which is slightly ahead
of Norway (78.8) but behind Sweden at 80.1.

Poverty rates are lower in the Nordics. Minnesota
has an 8.0% rate, Sweden a 6.5% rate, with a methodology
that tends to more readily count people.

This should be on the Sweden thread, but the talk
about slow growth from high taxes is just talk. Again,
Denmark is only barely behind the US and the others are
holding up well. All this ranting about taxes is mostly
just people repeating truisms without actually looking
at the data.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Oct 27, 2006 6:31:59 PM

All,

It is important to note that Minnesota turns in its education numbers with spending at the national average (less than 1% higher). By contrast, NY and NJ spends far more and achieve far less. District of Columbia is almost at the top in spending and remarkably worse than any other state in performance.

All of the spending numbers are NOT COLI adjusted. This would make a big difference for NJ, NY, and DOC, but less for MN.

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 27, 2006 9:20:32 PM

The U.S. is a multicultural society and births are unevenly distributed. I suspect that for most all of the people reading this blog, if they could look at the birthrate of the people they went to high school with, it would be well below replacement.

You're right, I'd say. Increasingly, even in the US, population growth is synonymous with immigration. While it's true that even without immigration America's population would continue to grow for a long while, it would grow increasingly slowly. I'm quoting from memory, but the charts I've seen predicting population at mid century (when the the USA's population will likely exceed 400 million) show the caucasian population pretty much standing still (there's a very slight increase, as I recall, but there's also a bit of white immigration to the US, too). Granted, America's Latino population will surge between now and mid-century, and not all of this will be due to immigration, but even here, it's mostly a newcomer's game: Latinos' propensity to have children unsurprisingly plummets toward native US levels rather quickly after establishing residence in the US.

In short, the desire not to have these expensive things called kids is an equal opportunity trend.

Posted by: Jasper at Oct 27, 2006 9:54:18 PM

All,

I found some state level COLI numbers. CA is 134.7 and HA is 161.3 (ouch). NJ is 131.7 and NY is 130.4. By contrast, MN is 97.1. This raises MN per-student outlays a bit versus the national average and reduces those of NY and NJ quite a bit. However, NY and NJ are still spending considerably more than MN and yielding quite a bit less.

Given that California's nominal per-capita income is only 7% greater than the national average in nominal terms, CA is actually quite poor (21% below the national average) . A funny note (from Steve Sailer). KS is about 8.5% below the national average in nominal per-capita GSP. However, it is 9.4% below average in the cost of living.

Thomas Frank famously wrote a book "What is wrong with Kansas?". Apparently, nothing is wrong with Kansas (This observation is also from Steve Sailer). He should have asked "What is wrong with California?" However, that wouldn't have yielded convenient PC answers. The “I” word might have been mentioned. Anyone who wishes to defend immigration needs to explain why America’s leading immigration state is so poor.

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 28, 2006 12:27:50 AM

Peter,

Have been out of town and busy and no access. Anyway,
I think your comparison of CA and KS is ludicrous.
So, I know someone dissed "variety of ethnic restaurants"
as a virtue of immigration, but between CA and KS it is
not even close and it is not just about restaurants.
There are not Asian much less taquerieas in Ks that match
what is available almost everywhere in CA, not to mention
the world-famous "California cuisine." Last time I was in
Tokyo there were "California" restaurants. Did not see
any "Kansas" restaurants, not to mention "Kansas Beach Boys."

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Oct 30, 2006 3:07:04 AM

Barkley Rosser

As a Dane and therefore also Scandinavian I must correct your earlier classification of Scandinavia and Nordic.

Scandinavia: Denmark, Norway and Sweden (Scandinavian peninsula Norway and Sweden).
Nordic: Denmark, Finland, Faeroe Islands (Denmark), Island, Norway and Sweden.

Greenland can sometimes be considered Nordic do to it being a part of The Kingdom of Denmark but is otherwise considered North Atlantic (along with Faeroe Island and Island) or North American do to being a part of that continent.

Sorry :o) (forgive me)

Posted by: Hans Hansen at Jan 6, 2007 12:23:13 AM

liqingchao 07年7月26日

google排名
 google排名
 wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
hong kong hotel
hong kong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
rolex replica
rolex replica
超声波探伤仪
 超声波探伤仪
 翻译公司
 翻译公司
 上海翻译公司